Skip to main content

Full text of "Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 01 The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus To Ante Nicene Fathers Volume 10 Bibliographic Synopsis General Index"

See other formats

ChmsTian Classics ErheneaL Liknany 

Nicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers 
Series II, Volume 2^ 

Philip Schaff 

ChmsTian Classics 

& Elbe Real Libnany 

NPNF2-02. Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical 

Author(s): Socrates Scholasticus 

Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor) 

Publisher: Grand Rapids, Ml: Christian Classics Ethereal Library 

Description: With over twenty volumes, the Nicene and Post-Nicene 

Fathers is a momentous achievement. Originally gathered 
by Philip Schaff, the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers is a 
collection of writings by classical and medieval Christian 
theologians.The purpose of such a collection is to make their 
writings readily available. The entire work is divided into two 
series, each with fourteen volumes. The second series fo- 
cuses on a variety of important Church Fathers, ranging from 
the fourth century to the eighth century. This volume contains 
the work of Sozomenus and Socrates-two fifth century 
Christian historians. They attempted to continue to the work 
of Eusebius, namely, providing a history of the Christian 
church. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are compre- 
hensive in scope, and provide keen translations of instructive 
and illuminating texts from some of the great theologians of 
the Christian church. These spiritually enlightening texts have 
aided Christians for over a thousand years, and remain in- 
structive and fruitful even today! 

Tim Perrine 
CCEL Staff Writer 

Subjects: Christianity 

Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc. 



Title Page. 1 

The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. 2 

Title Page. 2 

Prefatory Note. 3 

Introduction. 4 

Sources and Literature. 4 

Life of Socrates. 6 

Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 13 

History of Socrates' Work. 20 

Book I 23 

Introduction to the Work. 23 

By what Means the Emperor Constantine became a Christian. 24 

While Constantine favors the Christians, Licinius, his Colleague, persecutes 26 


War arises between Constantine and Licinius on Account of the Christians. 27 

The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop. 28 

Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of 29 
Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents. 

The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, 35 
sends Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the Bishop and Arius to 
Reconciliation and Unity. 

Of the Synod which was held at Nicaea in Bithynia, and the Creed there put 39 

The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation of 48 

Arius and those who agreed with him. 

The Emperor also summons to the Synod Acesius, Bishop of the Novatians. 58 
Of the Bishop Paphnutius. 59 


Of Spyridon, Bishop of the Cypriots. 60 

Of Eutychian the Monk. 61 

Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nicaea, who had been 63 
banished for agreeing in Opinion with Arius, having published their Recantation, 
and assented to the Creed, are reinstated in their Sees. 

After the Synod, on the Death of Alexander, Athanasius is constituted Bishop 65 

of Alexandria. 

The Emperor Constantine having enlarged the Ancient Byzantium, calls it 66 


The Emperor's Mother Helena having come to Jerusalem, searches for and finds 67 
the Cross of Christ, and builds a Church. 

The Emperor Constantine abolishes Paganism and erects many Churches in 69 
Different Places. 

In what Manner the Nations in the Interior of India were Christianized in the 71 
Times of Constantine. 

In what Manner the Iberians were converted to Christianity. 73 

Of Anthony the Monk. 76 

Manes, the Founder of the Manichaean Heresy, and on his Origin. 77 

Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nicaea, having recovered 79 

Confidence, endeavor to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plotting against 

Of the Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, 81 

on whose account a Sedition broke out and almost ruined the City. 

Of the Presbyter who exerted himself for the Recall of Arius. 83 

Arius, on being recalled, presents a Recantation to the Emperor, and pretends 85 
to accept the Nicene Creed. 

Arius having returned to Alexandria with the Emperor's Consent, and not being 86 

received by Athanasius, the Partisans of Eusebius bring Many Charges against 
Athanasius before the Emperor. 

On Account of the Charges against Athanasius, the Emperor convokes a Synod 89 
of Bishops at Tyre. 




Of Arsenius, and his Hand which was said to have been cut off. 

Athanasius is found Innocent of what he was accused; his Accusers take to 

When the Bishops will not listen to Athanasius' Defense on the Second Charge, 92 
he betakes himself to the Emperor. 

On the Departure of Athanasius, those who composed the Synod vote his 93 


The Members of the Synod proceed from Tyre to Jerusalem, and having 94 

celebrated the Dedication of the 'New Jerusalem,' receive Arius and his Followers 
into Communion. 

The Emperor summons the Synod to himself by Letter, in order that the Charges 95 

against Athanasius might be carefully examined before him. 

The Synod not having come to the Emperor, the Partisans of Eusebius accuse 97 

Athanasius of having threatened to divert the Corn supplied to Constantinople 
from Alexandria: the Emperor being exasperated at this banishes Athanasius 
into Gaul. 

Of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophist. 98 

After the Banishment of Athanasius, Arius having been sent for by the Emperor, 100 

raises a Disturbance against Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. 

The Death of Arius. 101 

The Emperor falls sick and dies. 103 

The Funeral of the Emperor Constantine. 104 

Book II 105 

Introduction containing the Reason for the Author's Revision of his First and 105 

Second Books. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and his Party, by again endeavoring to introduce 106 

the Arian Heresy, create Disturbances in the Churches. 

Athanasius, encouraged by the Letter of Constantine the Younger, returns to 108 

On the Death of Eusebius Pamphilus, Acacius succeeds to the Bishopric of 109 

The Death of Constantine the Younger. 110 

Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, when at the Point of Death proposes the 111 
Election either of Paul or of Macedonius as his Successor. 

The Emperor Constantius ejects Paul after his Election to the Bishopric, and 1 12 
sending for Eusebius of Nicomedia, invests him with the Bishopric of 

Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in Syria, causes a New 113 
Creed to be promulgated. 


Of Eusebius of Emisa. 114 

The Bishops assembled at Antioch, on the Refusal of Eusebius of Emisa to accept 115 

the Bishopric of Alexandria, ordain Gregory, and change the Language of the 
Nicene Creed. 

On the Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria, tended by a Military Escort, Athanasius 117 


The People of Constantinople restore Paul to his See after the Death of Eusebius, 118 
while the Arians elect Macedonius. 

Paul is again ejected from the Church by Constantius, in consequence of the 119 

Slaughter of Hermogenes, his General. 

The Arians remove Gregory from the See of Alexandria, and appoint George 120 
in his Place. 

Athanasius and Paul going to Rome, and having obtained Letters from Bishop 121 
Julius, recover their respective Dioceses. 

The Emperor Constantius, through an Order to Philip the Praetorian Prefect, 123 
secures the Exile of Paul, and the Installation of Macedonius in his See. 

Athanasius, intimidated by the Emperor's Threats, returns to Rome again. 125 

The Emperor of the West requests his Brother to send him Three Persons who 127 
could give an Account of the Deposition of Athanasius and Paul. Those who 
are sent publish Another Form of the Creed. 

Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy 129 

Of the Council at Sardica. 133 

Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus. 135 

The Council of Sardica restores Paul and Athanasius to their Sees; and on the 138 
Eastern Emperor's Refusal to admit them, the Emperor of the West threatens 
him with War. 

Constantius, being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by Letter, 139 
and sends him to Alexandria. 

Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem on his Return to Alexandria, is received 145 
into Communion by Maximus: and a Synod of Bishops, convened in that City, 
confirms the Nicene Creed. 

Of the Usurpers Magnentius and Vetranio. 146 

After the Death of Constans, the Western Emperor, Paul and Athanasius are 147 
again ejected from their Sees: the Former on his Way into Exile is slain; but the 
Latter escapes by Flight. 



Macedonius having possessed himself of the See of Constantinople inflicts much 
Injury on those who differ from him. 

Athanasius' Account of the Deeds of Violence committed at Alexandria by 150 
George the Arian. 

Of the Heresiarch Photinus. 153 

Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantius. 154 

Of Hosius, Bishop of Cordova. 159 

Overthrow of the Usurper Magnentius. 160 

Of the Jews inhabiting Dio-Caesarea in Palestine. 161 

Of Gallus Caesar. 162 

Of Aetius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius. 163 

Of the Synod at Milan. 165 

Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 166 

Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him. 175 

Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria. 179 

Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at 181 


On the Emperor's Return from the West, the Acacians assemble at 185 

Constantinople, and confirm the Creed of Ariminum, after making Some 
Additions to it. 

On the Deposition of Macedonius, Eudoxius obtains the Bishopric of 187 


Of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia. 188 

Of Meletius Bishop of Antioch. 1 90 

The Heresy of Macedonius. 191 

Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy. 193 

Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantius. 194 

Book III 195 

Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy 195 
to Paganism. 

Of the Sedition excited at Alexandria, and how George was slain. 200 

The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes the Alexandrians by 201 


On the Death of George, Athanasius returns to Alexandria, and takes Possession 204 

of his See. 

Of Lucifer and Eusebius. 205 

Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus. 206 

By the Co-operation of Eusebius and Athanasius a Synod is held at Alexandria, 207 

wherein the Trinity is declared to be Consubstantial. 

Quotations from Athanasius' 'Defense of his Flight.' 209 

After the Synod of Alexandria, Eusebius proceeding to Antioch finds the 213 

Catholics at Variance on Account of Paulinus' Consecration; and having exerted 
himself in vain to reconcile them, he departs; Indignation of Lucifer and Origin 
of a Sect called after him. 

Of Hilary Bishop of Poictiers. 214 

The Emperor Julian extracts Money from the Christians. 215 

Of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon; Julian forbids Christians from entering Literary 216 

Of the Outrages committed by the Pagans against the Christians. 217 

Flight of Athanasius . 219 

Martyrs at Merum in Phrygia, under Julian. 220 

Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor's Prohibition 221 
of Christians being instructed in Greek Literature. 

The Emperor preparing an Expedition against the Persians, arrives at Antioch, 224 
and being ridiculed by the Inhabitants, he retorts on them by a Satirical 
Publication entitled 'Misopogon, or the Beard-Hater.' 

The Emperor consulting an Oracle, the Demon gives no Response, being awed 225 
by the Nearness of Babylas the Martyr. 

Wrath of the Emperor, and Firmness of Theodore the Confessor. 226 

The Jews instigated by the Emperor attempt to rebuild their Temple, and are 227 
frustrated in their Attempt by Miraculous Interposition. 

The Emperor's Invasion of Persia, and Death. 229 

Jovian is proclaimed Emperor. 231 

Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 232 

The Bishops flock around Jovian, each attempting to draw him to his own Creed. 238 

The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and proclaim their Assent to 239 
the Nicene Creed. 


Death of the Emperor Jovian. 
Book IV 



After Jovian's Death, Valentinian is proclaimed Emperor, and takes his Brother 243 
Valens as Colleague in the Empire; Valentinian holds the Orthodox Faith, but 
Valens is an Arian. 

Valentinian goes into the West; Valens remains at Constantinople, and grants 245 
the Request of the Macedonians to hold a Synod, but persecutes the Adherents 
of the 'Homoousion.' 

While Valens persecutes the Orthodox Christians in the East, a Usurper arises 246 
at Constantinople named Procopius: and at the Same Time an Earthquake and 
Inundation take Place and injure Several Cities. 

The Macedonians hold a Synod at Lampsacus, during a Period of Both Secular 247 
and Ecclesiastical Agitation; and after confirming the Antiochian Creed, and 
anathematizing that promulgated at Ariminum, they again ratify the Deposition 
of Acacius and Eudoxius. 

Engagement between Valens and Procopius near Nacolia in Phrygia; after which 248 
the Usurper is betrayed by his Chief Officers, and with them put to Death. 

After the Death of Procopius Valens constrains those who composed the Synod, 249 
and All Christians, to profess Arianism. 

Eunomius supersedes Eleusius the Macedonian in the See of Cyzicus, His Origin 250 

and Imitation of Aetius, whose Amanuensis he had been. 

Of the Oracle found inscribed an a Stone, when the Walls of Chalcedon were 252 
demolished by Order of the Emperor Valens. 

Valens persecutes the Novatians, because they accepted the Orthodox Faith. 254 

Birth of Valentinian the Younger. 255 

Hail of Extraordinary Size; and Earthquakes in Bithynia and the Hellespont. 256 

The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor's Violence toward them, send a 257 

Deputation to Liberius Bishop of Rome, and subscribe the Nicene Creed. 

Eunomius separates from Eudoxius; a Disturbance is raised at Alexandria by 262 

Eudoxius, and Athanasius flees into Voluntary Exile again, but in Consequence 
of the Clamors of the People the Emperor recalls and re-establishes him in his 

The Arians ordain Demophilus after the Death of Eudoxius at Constantinople; 263 
but the Orthodox Party constitute Evagrius his Successor. 

The Emperor banishes Evagrius and Eustathius. The Arians persecute the 264 



Certain Presbyters burnt in a Ship by Order of Valens. Famine in Phrygia. 265 

The Emperor Valens, while at Antioch, again persecutes the Adherents of the 266 

Events at Edessa: Constancy of the Devout Citizens, and Courage of a Pious 267 


Slaughter of Many Persons by Valens an Account of their Names, in 269 

Consequence of a Heathen Prediction. 

Death of Athanasius, and Elevation of Peter to His See. 270 

The Arians are allowed by the Emperor to imprison Peter and to set Lucius over 271 

the See of Alexandria. 

Silence of Sabinus on the Misdeeds of the Arians; Flight of Peter to Rome; 272 

Massacre of the Solitaries at the Instigation of the Arians. 

The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Life. 273 

Assault upon the Monks, and Banishment of their Superiors, who exhibit 279 

Miraculous Power. 

Of Didymus the Blind Man. 281 

Of Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus. 282 

Of Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder-Worker). 285 

Of Novatus and his Followers. The Novatians of Phrygia alter the Time of 286 

keeping Easter, following Jewish Usage. 

Damasus ordained Bishop of Rome. Sedition and Loss of Life caused by the 288 

Rivalry of Ursinus. 

Dissension about a Successor to Auxentius, Bishop of Milan. Ambrose, Governor 289 

of the Province, going to appease the Tumult, is by General Consent and with 
the Approval of the Emperor V alentinian elected to the Bishopric of that Church. 

Death of Valentinian. 290 

The Emperor Valens, appeased by the Oration of Themistius the Philosopher, 292 
abates his Persecution of the Christians. 

The Goths, under the Reign of Valens, embrace Christianity. 293 

Admission of the Fugitive Goths into the Roman Territories, which caused the 294 

Emperor's Overthrow, and eventually the Ruin of the Roman Empire. 

Abatement of Persecution against the Christians because of the War with the 295 

The Saracens, under Mavia their Queen, embrace Christianity; and Moses, a 296 
Pious Monk, is consecrated their Bishop. 


After the Departure of Valens from Antioch, the Alexandrians expel Lucius, 297 
and restore Peter, who had come with Letters from Damasus Bishop of Rome. 

The Emperor Valens is ridiculed by the People on Account of the Goths; 298 

undertakes an Expedition against them and is slain in an Engagement near 

Book V 299 

Introduction. 299 

After the Death of Valens the Goths again attack Constantinople, and are 300 

repulsed by the Citizens, aided by Some Saracen Auxiliaries. 

The Emperor Gratian recalls the Orthodox Bishops, and expels the Heretics 301 
from the Churches. He takes Theodosius as his Colleague in the Empire. 

The Principal Bishops who flourished at that Time. 302 

The Macedonians, who had subscribed the 'Homoousian' Doctrine, return to 303 
their Former Error. 

Events at Antioch in Connection with Paulinus and Meletius. 304 

Gregory of Nazianzus is transferred to the See of Constantinople. The Emperor 305 
Theodosius falling Sick at Thessalonica, after his Victory over the Barbarians, 
is there baptized by Ascholius the Bishop. 

Gregory, finding Some Dissatisfaction about his Appointment, abdicates the 306 
Episcopate of Constantinople. The Emperor orders Demophilus the Arian 
Bishop either to assent to the 'Homoousion,' or leave the City. He chooses the 

A Synod consisting of One Hundred and Fifty Bishops meets at Constantinople. 308 
The Decrees passed. Ordination of Nectarius. 

The Body of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, is honorably transferred from his 311 
Place of Exile. Death of Meletius. 

The Emperor orders a Convention composed of All the V arious Sects. Arcadius 312 
is proclaimed Augustus. The Novatians permitted to hold their Assemblies in 
the City of Constantinople: Other Heretics driven out. 

The Emperor Gratian is slain by the Treachery of the Usurper Maximus. From 315 
Fear of him Justina ceases persecuting Ambrose. 

While the Emperor Theodosius is engaged in Military Preparations against 316 
Maximus, his Son Honorius is born. He then proceeds to Milan in Order to 
encounter the Usurper. 

The Arians excite a Tumult at Constantinople. 317 

Overthrow and Death of the Usurper Maximus. 318 


Of Flavian Bishop of Antioch. 319 

Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent 320 

Conflict between the Pagans and Christians. 

Of the Hieroglyphics found in the Temple of Serapis. 322 

Reformation of Abuses at Rome by the Emperor Theodosius. 324 

Of the Office of Penitentiary Presbyters and its Abolition. 326 

Divisions among the Arians and Other Heretics. 328 

Peculiar Schism among the Novatians. 329 

The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting, 331 
Marriage, the Eucharist, and Other Ecclesiastical Rites. 

Further Dissensions among the Arians at Constantinople. The Psathyrians. 339 

The Eunomians divide into Several Factions. 341 

The Usurper Eugenius compasses the Death of Valentinian the Younger. 343 

Theodosius obtains a Victory over him. 

Illness and Death of Theodosius the Elder. 345 

Book VI 346 

Introduction. 346 

On the Death of Theodosius his Two Sons divide the Empire. Rufinus is slain 348 
at the Feet of Arcadius. 

Death of Nectarius and Ordination of John. 349 

Birth and Education of John Bishop of Constantinople. 351 

Of Serapion the Deacon on whose Account John becomes Odious to his Clergy. 353 

John draws down upon Himself the Displeasure of Many Persons of Rank and 354 
Power. Of the Eunuch Eutropius. 

Ga'inas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power; after filling 356 

Constantinople with Disorder, he is slain. 

Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the 359 

Desert. Condemnation of Origen's Books. 

The Arians and the Supporters of the 'Homoousion' hold Nocturnal Assemblies 362 

and sing Antiphonal Hymns, a Species of Composition ascribed to Ignatius, 
surnamed Theophorus. Conflict between the Two Parties. 

Dispute between Theophilus and Peter leading to an Attempt on the Part of the 364 
Former to depose John Bishop of Constantinople. 

Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus convenes a Synod to condemn the Books of Origen. 366 


Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John. 368 

Epiphanius, in order to gratify Theophilus, performs Ordinations at 371 

Constantinople without John's Permission. 

The Author's Defence of Origen. 372 

Epiphanius is asked to meet John; on refusing he is admonished concerning his 373 
Anticanonical Proceedings; alarmed at this he leaves Constantinople. 

John is expelled from his Church by a Synod held at Chalcedon on account of 374 
his Dispraise of Women. 

Sedition on Account of John Chrysostom's Banishment. He is recalled. 376 

Conflict between the Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians on Account of 377 
Heraclides; Flight of Theophilus and the Bishops of his Party. 

Of Eudoxia's Silver Statue. On account of it John is exiled a Second Time. 378 

Ordination of Arsacius as John's Successor. Indisposition of Cyrinus Bishop of 380 

Death of Arsacius, and Ordination of Atticus. 381 

John dies in Exile. 382 

Of Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatians. His Readiness at Repartee. 383 

Death of the Emperor Arcadius. 385 

Book VII 386 

Anthemius the Praetorian Prefect administers the Government of the East in 386 

Behalf of Young Theodosius. 

Character and Conduct of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople. 387 

Of Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops of Synada. 388 

A Paralytic Jew healed by Atticus in Baptism. 389 

The Presbyter Sabbatius, formerly a Jew, separates from the Novatians. 390 

The Leaders of Arianism at this Time. 391 

Cyril succeeds Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria. 392 

Propagation of Christianity among the Persians by Maruthas Bishop of 393 


The Bishops of Antioch and Rome. 395 

Rome taken and sacked by Alaric. 396 

The Bishops of Rome. 397 

Of Chrysanthus Bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople. 398 


Conflict between the Christians and Jews at Alexandria: and breach between 400 
the Bishop Cyril and the Prefect Orestes. 

The Monks of Nitria come down and raise a Sedition against the Prefect of 402 

Of Hypatia the Female Philosopher. 403 

The Jews commit Another Outrage upon the Christians and are punished. 404 

Miracle performed by Paul Bishop of the Novatians at the Baptism of a Jewish 405 

Renewal of Hostilities between the Romans and Persians after the Death of 407 
Isdigerdes King of the Persians. 

Of Palladius the Courier. 409 

A Second Overthrow of the Persians by the Romans. 410 

Kind Treatment of the Persian Captives by Acacius Bishop of Amida. 412 

Virtues of the Emperor Theodosius the Younger. 414 

After the Death of the Emperor Honorius John usurps the Sovereignty at Rome. 417 

He is destroyed through the Prayers of Theodosius the Younger. 

Valentinian a Son of Constantius and Placidia, Aunt of Theodosius, is proclaimed 419 

Christian Benevolence of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople. He registers John's 420 
Name in the Diptychs. His Fore-knowledge of his Own Death. 

Sisinnius is chosen to succeed Atticus. 423 

Voluminous Productions of Philip, a Presbyter of Side. 424 

Proclus ordained Bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinnius, but rejected by the People. 425 

Nestorius of Antioch promoted to the See of Constantinople. His Persecution 426 

of the Heretics. 

The Burgundians embrace Christianity under Theodosius the Younger. 428 

Nestorius harasses the Macedonians. 429 

Of the Presbyter Anastasius, by whom the Faith of Nestorius was perverted. 430 
Desecration of the Altar of the Great Church by Runaway Slaves. 432 

Synod at Ephesus against Nestorius. His Deposition. 433 

Maximian elected to the Episcopate of Constantinople, though Some wished 435 
Proclus to take that Place. 

The Author's Opinion of the Validity of Translations from One See to Another. 436 

Miracle performed by Silvanus Bishop of Troas formerly of Philippopolis. 438 



Many of the Jews in Crete embrace the Christian Faith. 

Preservation of the Church of the Novatians from Fire. 441 

Proclus succeeds Maximian Bishop of Constantinople. 442 

Excellent Qualities of Proclus. 443 

Panegyric of the Emperor Theodosius Younger. 444 

Calamities of the Barbarians who had been the Usurper John's Allies. 445 

Marriage of the Emperor V alentinian with Eudoxia the Daughter of Theodosius. 446 

The Body of John Chrysostom transferred to Constantinople, and placed in the 447 
Church of the Apostles by the Emperor at the Instigation of Proclus. 

Death of Paul Bishop of the Novatians, and Election of Marcian as his Successor. 448 

The Empress Eudocia goes to Jerusalem; sent there by the Emperor Theodosius. 450 

Thalassius is ordained Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 451 

The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen. 452 

Title Page. 452 

Introduction. 453 

The Life. 453 

Sozomen as Author. 465 

Bibliography. 502 

Conclusion. 514 

Prefatory Remarks, by Valesius. 515 

Memoir of Sozomen. 519 

Address to the Emperor Theodosius by Salaminius Hermias Sozomen, and 521 

Proposal for an Ecclesiastical History. 

Book I 524 

The Preface of the Book, in which he investigates the History of the Jewish 524 

Nation; Mention of those who began such a Work; how and from what Sources 
he collected his History; how he was intent upon the Truth, and what other 
Details the History will contain. 

Of the Bishops of the Large Towns in the Reign of Constantine; and how, from 529 
fear of Licinius, Christianity was professed cautiously in the East as far as Libya, 
while in the West, through the Favor of Constantine, it was professed with 

By the Vision of the Cross, and by the Appearance of Christ, Constantine is led 530 

to embrace Christianity.--He receives Religious Instruction from our Brethren. 


Constantine commands the Sign of the Cross to be carried before him in Battle; 532 
an Extraordinary Narrative about the Bearers of the Sign of the Cross. 

Refutation of the Assertion that Constantine became a Christian in consequence 533 

of the Murder of his son Crispus. 

The Father of Constantine allows the Name of Christ to be Extended; 534 

Constantine the Great prepared it to Penetrate Everywhere. 

Concerning the Dispute between Constantine and Licinius his Brother-In-Law 536 
about the Christians, and how Licinius was conquered by Force and put to 

List of the Benefits which Constantine conferred in the Freedom of the Christians 537 

and Building of Churches; and other Deeds for the Public Welfare. 

Constantine enacts a Law in favor of Celibates and of the Clergy. 540 

Concerning the Great Confessors who survived. 542 

Account of St. Spyridon: His Modesty and Steadfastness. 543 

On the Organization of the Monks: its Origin and Founders. 546 

About Antony the Great and St. Paul the Simple. 548 

Account of St. Ammon and Eutychius of Olympus. 551 

The Arian Heresy, its Origin, its Progress, and the Contention which it 553 

occasioned among the Bishops. 

Constantine, having heard of the Strife of the Bishops, and the Difference of 556 

Opinion concerning the Passover, is greatly troubled and sends Hosius, a 
Spaniard, Bishop of Cordova, to Alexandria, to abolish the Dissension among 
the Bishops, and to settle the Dispute about the Passover. 

Of the Council convened at Nicaea on Account of Arius. 557 

Two Philosophers are converted to the Faith by the Simplicity of Two Old Men 559 
with whom they hold a Disputation. 

When the Council was assembled, the Emperor delivered a Public Address. 561 

After having given Audience to both Parties, the Emperor condemned the 562 

Followers of Arius and banished them. 

What the Council determined about Arius; the Condemnation of his Followers; 563 

his Writings are to be burnt; certain of the High Priests differ from the Council; 
the Settlement of the Passover. 

Acesius, Bishop of the Novatians, is summoned by the Emperor to be present 565 
at the First Council. 


Canons appointed by the Council; Paphnutius, a certain Confessor, restrains 566 
the Council from forming a Canon enjoining Celibacy to all who were about 
to be honored with the Priesthood. 

Concerning Melitius; the Excellent Directions made by the Holy Council in his 567 

The Emperor prepared a Public T able for the Synod, after inviting its Members 568 

to Constantinople, and honoring them with Gifts, he exhorted all to be of One 
Mind, and forwarded to Alexandria and every other place the Decrees of the 
Holy Synod. 

Book II 569 

The Discovery of the Life-Bringing Cross and of the Holy Nails. 569 

Concerning Helena, the Mother of the Emperor; she visited Jerusalem, built 572 
Temples in that City, and performed other Godly Works: Her Death. 

Temples Built by Constantine the Great; the City called by his Name; its 573 

Founding; the Buildings within it; the Temple of Michael the Archsoldier, in 
the Sosthenium, and the Miracles which have occurred there. 

What Constantine the Great effected about the Oak in Mamre; he also built a 576 

Constantine destroyed the Places dedicated to the Idols, and persuaded the 578 
People to prefer Christianity. 

The Reason why under Constantine, the N ame of Christ was spread throughout 580 

the Whole World. 

How the Iberians received the Faith of Christ. 581 

How the Armenians and Persians embraced Christianity. 584 

Sapor King of Persia is excited against the Christians. Symeon, Bishop of Persia, 585 

and Usthazanes, a Eunuch, suffer the Agony of Martyrdom. 

Christians slain by Sapor in Persia. 588 

Pusices, Superintendent of the Artisans of Sapor. 589 

Tarbula, the Sister of Symeon, and her Martyrdom. 590 

Martyrdom of St. Acepsimas and of his Companions. 591 

The Martyrdom of Bishop Milles and his Conduct. Sixteen Thousand 592 

Distinguished Men in Persia suffer Martyrdom under Sapor, besides Obscure 

Constantine writes to Sapor to stay the Persecution of the Christians. 593 


Eusebius and Theognis who at the Council of Nice had assented to the Writings 594 
of Arius restored to their own Sees. 

On the Death of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, at his Suggestion, Athanasius 596 
receives the Throne; and an Account of his Youth; how he was a Self-Taught 
Priest, and beloved by Antony the Great. 

The Arians and Melitians confer Celebrity on Athanasius; concerning Eusebius, 598 
and his Request of Athanasius to admit Arius to Communion; concerning the 
Term “Consubstantial” Eusebius Pamphilus and Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, 
create Tumults above all the rest. 

Synod of Antioch; Unjust Deposition of Eustathius; Euphronius receives the 599 
Throne; Constantine the Great writes to the Synod and to Eusebius Pamphilus, 

who refuses the Bishopric of Antioch. 

Concerning Maximus, who succeeded Macarius in the See of Jerusalem. 601 

The Melitians and the Arians agree in Sentiment; Eusebius and Theognis 602 

endeavor to inflame anew the Disease of Arius. 

The Vain Machinations of the Arians and Melitians against St. Athanasius. 604 

Calumny respecting St. Athanasius and the Hand of Arsenius. 606 

Some Indian Nations received Christianity at that Time through the 608 

Instrumentality of Two Captives, Frumentius and Edesius. 

Council of Tyre; Illegal Deposition of St. Athanasius. 610 

Erection of a Temple by Constantine the Great at Golgotha, in Jerusalem; its 613 

Concerning the Presbyter by whom Constantine was persuaded to recall Arius 614 
and Euzoius from Exile; the Tractate concerning his Possibly Pious Faith, and 

how Arius was again received by the Synod assembled at Jerusalem. 

Letter from the Emperor Constantine to the Synod of Tyre, and Exile of St. 617 
Athanasius through the Machination of the Arian Faction. 

Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople; his Refusal to receive Arius into 619 

Communion; Arius is burst asunder while seeking Natural Relief. 

Account given by the Great Athanasius of the Death of Arius. 620 

Events which occurred in Alexandria after the Death of Arius. Letter of 622 

Constantine the Great to the Church there. 

Constantine enacts a Law against all Heresies, and prohibits the People from 623 
holding Church in any place but the Catholic Church, and thus the Greater 
Number of Heresies disappear. The Arians who sided with Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, artfully attempted to obliterate the Term “Consubstantial.” 


Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra; his Heresy and Deposition. 625 

Death of Constantine the Great; he died after Baptism and was buried in the 626 
Temple of the Holy Apostles. 

Book III 627 

After the Death of Constantine the Great, the Adherents of Eusebius and 627 

Theognis attack the Nicene Faith. 

Return of Athanasius the Great from Rome; Letter of Constantine Caesar, Son 628 
of Constantine the Great; Renewed Machinations of the Arians against 
Athanasius; Acacius of Berroea; War between Constans and Constantine. 

Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, and Macedonius, the Pneumatomachian. 630 

A Sedition was excited on the Ordination of Paul. 632 

The Partial Council of Antioch; it deposed Athanasius; it substituted Gregory; 633 
its Two Statements of the Faith; those who agreed with them. 

Eusebius surnamed Emesenus; Gregory accepted Alexandria; Athanasius seeks 635 
Refuge in Rome. 

High Priests of Rome and of Constantinople; Restoration of Paul after Eusebius; 637 

the Slaughter of Hermogenes, a General of the Army; Constantius came from 
Antioch and removed Paul, and was wrathfully disposed toward the City; he 
allowed Macedonius to be in Doubt, and returned to Antioch. 

Arrival of the Eastern High Priests at Rome; Letter of Julius, Bishop of Rome, 639 
concerning them; by means of the Letters of Julius, Paul and Athanasius receive 
their own Sees; Contents of the Letter from the Archpriests of the East to Julius. 

Ejection of Paul and Athanasius; Macedonius is invested with the Government 641 
of the Church of Constantinople. 

The Bishop of Rome writes to the Bishops of the East in Favor of Athanasius, 642 
and they send an Embassy to Rome who, with the Bishop of Rome, are to 
investigate the Charges against the Eastern Bishops; this Deputation is dismissed 
by Constans, the Caesar. 

The Long Formulary and the Enactments issued by the Synod of Sardica. Julius, 643 

Bishop of Rome, and Hosius, the Spanish Bishop, deposed by the Bishops of 
the East, because they held Communion with Athanasius and the Rest. 

The Bishops of the Party of Julius and Hosius held another Session and deposed 645 

the Eastern High Priests, and also made a Formulary of Faith. 

After the Synod, the East and the West are separated; the West nobly adheres 647 
to the Faith of the Nicene Council, while the East is disturbed by Contention 
here and there over this Dogma. 


Of the Holy Men who flourished about this time in Egypt, namely, Antony, the 648 
Two Macariuses, Heraclius, Cronius, Paphnutius, Putubastus, Arsisius, Serapion, 
Piturion, Pachomius, Apollonius, Anuph, Hilarion, and a Register of many 
other Saints. 

Didymus the Blind, and Aetius the Heretic. 654 

Concerning St. Ephraim. 656 

Transactions of that Period, and Progress of Christian Doctrine through the 659 
Joint Efforts of Emperors and Arch-Priests. 

Concerning the Doctrines held by the Sons of Constantine. Distinction between 660 

the Terms “Homoousios” and “Homoiousios.” Whence it came that Constantius 
quickly abandoned the Correct Faith. 

Further Particulars concerning the Term “Consubstantial.” Council of 661 

Ariminum, the Manner, Source, and Reason of its Convention. 

Athanasius again reinstated by the Letter of Constantius, and receives his See. 663 
The Arch-Priests of Antioch. Question put by Constantius to Athanasius. The 
Praise of God in Hymns. 

Letter of Constantius to the Egyptians in behalf of Athanasius. Synod of 665 


Epistle written by the Synod of Jerusalem in Favor of Athanasius. 666 

Valens and Ursacius, who belonged to the Arian Faction, confess to the Bishop 667 
of Rome that they had made False Charges against Athanasius. 

Letter of Conciliation from Valens and Ursacius to the Great Athanasius. 668 

Restoration of the Other Eastern Bishops to their own Sees. Ejection of 
Macedonius again; and Accession of Paul to the See. 

Book IV 669 

Death of Constans Caesar. Occurrences which took place in Rome. 669 

Constantius again ejects Athanasius, and banishes those who represented the 670 
Homoousian Doctrine. Death of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople. Macedonius: 
his Second Usurpation of the See, and his Evil Deeds. 

Martyrdom of the Holy Notaries. 671 

Campaign of Constantius in Sirmium, and Details concerning Vetranio and 672 
Magnentius. Gallus receives the Title of Caesar, and is sent to the East. 

Cyril directs the Sacerdotal Office after Maximus, and the Largest Form of the 673 
Cross, surpassing the Sun in Splendor, again appears in the Heavens, and is 
visible during several Days. 


Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium. His Heresy, and the Council convened at Sirmium 674 
in Opposition thereto. The Three Formularies of Faith. This Agitator of Empty 
Ideas was refuted by Basil of Ancyra. After his Deposition Photinus, although 

solicited, declined Reconciliation. 

Death of the Tyrants Magnentius and Silvanus the Apostate. Sedition of the 677 
Jews in Palestine. Gallus Caesar is slain, on Suspicion of Revolution. 

Arrival of Constantius at Rome. A Council held in Italy. Account of what 678 

happened to Athanasius the Great through the Machinations of the Arians. 

Council of Milan. Flight of Athanasius. 680 

Divers Machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and his Escape from 682 

Various Dangers through Divine Interposition. Evil Deeds perpetrated by George 
in Egypt after the Expulsion of Athanasius. 

Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the cause of his being exiled by Constantius. Felix 684 
his Successor. 

Aetius, the Syrian, and Eudoxius, the Successor of Leontius in Antioch. 686 

Concerning the Term “Consubstantial.” 

Innovations of Eudoxius censured in a Letter written by George, Bishop of 688 
Laodicea. Deputation from the Council of Ancyra to Constantius. 

Letter of the Emperor Constantius against Eudoxius and his Partisans. 689 

The Emperor Constantius repairs to Sirmium, recalls Liberius, and restores him 69 1 
to the Church of Rome; he also commands Felix to assist Liberius in the 
Sacerdotal Office. 

The Emperor purposed, on account of the Heresy of Aetius and the Innovations 692 

in Antioch, to convene a Council at Nicomedia; but as an Earthquake took place 
in that City, and many other Affairs intervened, the Council was first convened 
at Nicaea, and afterwards at Ariminum and Seleucia. Account of Arsacius, the 

Proceedings of the Council of Ariminum. 696 

Letter from the Council at Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius. 698 

Concerning the Deputies of the Council and the Emperor's Letter; Agreement 700 
of the Adherents of Ursacius and Valens afterwards with the Letter put forth; 

Exile of the Archbishops. Concerning the Synod at Nicaea, and the Reason why 
the Synod was held in Ariminum. 

Events which took place in the Eastern Churches: Marathonius, Eleusius of 702 
Cyzicus, and Macedonius expel those who maintain the Term “Consubstantial.” 
Concerning the Churches of the Novatians; how one Church was Transported; 
the Novatians enter into Communion with the Orthodox. 


Proceedings of Macedonius in Mantinium. His Removal from his See when he 704 

attempted to remove the Coffin of Constantine the Great. Julian was pronounced 


Council of Seleucia. 705 

Acacius and Aetius; and how the Deputies of the Two Councils of Ariminum 709 
and of Seleucia were led by the Emperor to accept the Same Doctrines. 

Formulary of the Council of Ariminum approved by the Acacians. List of the 711 
Deposed Chief- Priests, and the Causes of their Condemnation. 

Causes of the Deposition of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem. Mutual Dissensions 714 
among the Bishops. Melitius is ordained by the Arians, and supplants Eustathius 
in the Bishopric of Sebaste. 

Death of Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople. What Eudoxius said in his 716 
Teaching. Eudoxius and Acacius strenuously sought the Abolition of the 

Formularies of Faith set forth at Nicaea and at Ariminum; Troubles which thence 
arose in the Churches. 

Macedonius, after his Rejection from his See, blasphemes against the Holy Spirit; 717 
Propagation of his Heresy through the Instrumentality of Marathonius and 

The Arians, under the Impression that the divine Meletius upheld their 718 

Sentiments, translate him from Sebaste to Antioch. On his Bold Confession of 
the Orthodox Doctrines, they were confounded, and after they had deposed 
him they placed Euzoius in the See. Meletius formed his own Church: but those 

who held to Consubstantiality turned away from him because he had been 
ordained by Arians. 

The Partisans of Acacius again do not remain Quiet, but strive to abolish the 720 
Term “Consubstantial,” and to confirm the Heresy of Arius. 

George, Bishop of Antioch, and the Chief-Priests of Jerusalem. Three 721 

Chief-Priests successively succeed Cyril; Restoration of Cyril to the See of 

Book V 722 

Apostasy of Julian, the Traitor. Death of the Emperor Constantius. 722 

The Life, Education, and Training of Julian, and his Accession to the Empire. 724 

Julian, on his Settlement in the Empire, began quietly to stir up Opposition to 728 
Christianity, and to introduce Paganism artfully. 

Julian inflicted Evils upon the Inhabitants of Caesarea. Bold Fidelity of Maris, 730 
Bishop of Chalcedon. 


Julian restores Liberty to the Christians, in order to execute Further Troubles 732 
in the Church. The Evil Treatment of Christians he devised. 

Athanasius, after having been Seven Years concealed in the House of a Wise 734 
and Beautiful Virgin, reappears at that time in Public, and enters the Church 
of Alexandria. 

Violent Death and Triumph of George, Bishop of Alexandria. The Result of 735 

Certain Occurrences in the Temple of Mithra. Letter of Julian on this Aggravated 

Concerning Theodore, the Keeper of the Sacred Vessels of Antioch. How Julian, 737 

the Uncle of the Traitor, on Account of these Vessels, falls a Prey to Worms. 

Martyrdom of the Saints Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno in the City of Gaza. 738 

Concerning St. Hilarion and the Virgins in Heliopolis who were destroyed by 740 
Swine. Strange Martyrdom of Mark, Bishop of Arethusa. 

Concerning Macedonius, Theodulus, Gratian, Busiris, Basil, and Eupsychius, 742 
who suffered Martyrdom in those Times. 

Concerning Lucifer and Eusebius, Bishops of the West. Eusebius with Athanasius 744 

the Great and Other Bishops collect a Council at Alexandria, and confirm the 
Nicene Faith by defining the Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and 
the Son. Their Decree concerning Substance and Hypostasis. 

Concerning Paulinus and Meletius, Chief-Priests of Antioch; how Eusebius and 745 

Lucifer antagonized One Another; Eusebius and Hilarius defend the Nicene 

The Partisans of Macedonius disputed with the Arians concerning Acacius. 746 

Athanasius is again Banished; concerning Eleusius, Bishop of Cyzicus, and Titus, 747 

Bishop of Bostra; Mention of the Ancestors of the Author. 

Efforts of Julian to establish Paganism and to abolish our Usages. The Epistle 750 
which he sent to the Pagan High-Priests. 

In Order that he might not be thought Tyrannical, Julian proceeds artfully 753 
against the Christians. Abolition of the Sign of the Cross. He makes the Soldiery 
sacrifice, although they were Unwilling. 

He prohibited the Christians from the Markets and from the Judicial Seats and 755 
from Sharing in Greek Education. Resistance of Basil the Great, Gregory the 
Theologian, and Apolinarius to this Decree. They rapidly translate the Scripture 
into Greek Modes of Expression. Apolinarius and Gregory Nazianzen do this 
more than Basil, the one in a Rhetorical Vein, the other in Epic Style and in 
Imitation of every Poet. 


Work written by Julian entitled “Aversion to Beards.” Daphne in Antioch, a 
Full Description of it. Translation of the Remains of Babylas, the Holy Martyr. 

In Consequence of the Translation, Many of the Christians are Ill-Treated. 
Theodore the Confessor. Temple of Apollo at Daphne destroyed by Fire falling 
from Heaven. 

Of the Statue of Christ in Paneas which Julian overthrew and made Valueless; 
he erected his own Statue; this was overthrown by a Thunder-Bolt and destroyed. 
Fountain of Emmaus in which Christ washed his Feet. Concerning the Tree 
Persis, which worshiped Christ in Egypt, and the Wonders wrought through it. 

From Aversion to the Christians, Julian granted Permission to the Jews to rebuild 
the Temple at Jerusalem; in every Endeavor to put their Hands to the Work, 
Fire sprang upward and killed Many. About the Sign of the Cross which appeared 
on the Clothing of those who had exerted themselves in this Work. 

Book VI 

Expedition of Julian into Persia; he was worsted and broke off his Life Miserably. 
Letter written by Libanius, describing his Death. 

He perished under Divine Wrath. Visions of the Emperor's Death seen by 
Various Individuals. Reply of the Carpenter's Son; Julian tossed his Blood aloft 
to Christ. Calamities which Julian entailed upon the Romans. 

The Reign of Jovian; he introduced Many Laws which he carried out in his 

Troubles again arise in the Churches; Synod of Antioch, in which the Nicene 
Faith is confirmed; the Points which this Important Synod wrote about to Jovian. 

Athanasius the Great is Very Highly Esteemed by the Emperor, and rules over 
the Churches of Egypt. Vision of Antony the Great. 

Death of Jovian; The Life of Valentinian, and his Confidence in God; how he 
was advanced to the Throne and selected his Brother Valens to reign with him; 
the Differences of Both. 

Troubles again arise in the Churches, and the Synod of Lampsacus is held. The 
Arians who supported Eudoxius prevail and eject the Orthodox from the 
Churches. Among the Ejected is Meletius of Antioch. 

Revolt and Extraordinary Death of Procopius. Eleusius, Bishop of Cyzicus, and 
Eunomius, the Heretic. Eunomius succeeds Eleusius. 

Sufferings of those who maintained the Nicene Faith. Agelius, the Ruler of the 














Concerning Valentinian the Younger and Gratian. Persecution under Valens. 783 
The Homoousians, being oppressed by the Arians and Macedonians, send an 
Embassy to Rome. 

The Confession of Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, the Deputies of the 785 
Macedonians, to Liberius, Bishop of Rome. 

Councils of Sicily and of Tyana. The Synod which was expected to be held in 786 
Cilicia is dissolved by Valens. The Persecution at that Time. Athanasius the 
Great flees again, and is in Concealment; by the Letter of Valens he reappears, 
and governs the Churches in Egypt. 

Demophilus, an Arian, became Bishop of Constantinople after Eudoxius. The 789 
Pious elect Evagrius. Account of the Persecution which ensued. 

Account of the Eighty Pious Delegates in Nicomedia, whom Valens burned 790 
with the Vessel in Mid-Sea. 

Disputes between Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, and Basil the Great. Hence the 791 
Arians took courage and came to Caesarea, and were repulsed. 

Basil becomes Bishop of Caesarea after Eusebius; his Boldness towards the 792 

Emperor and the Prefect. 

Friendship of Basil and of Gregory, the Theologian; being Peers in Wisdom, 794 
they defend the Nicene Doctrines. 

The Persecution which occurred at Antioch, on the Orontes. The Place of Prayer 795 
in Edessa, called after the Apostle Thomas; the Assembly there, and Confession 
of the Inhabitants of Edessa. 

Death of the Great Athanasius; the Elevation of Lucius, who was Arian-Minded, 796 

to the See; the Numerous Calamities he brought upon the Churches in Egypt; 

Peter, who served after Athanasius, passed over to Rome. 

Persecution of the Egyptian Monks, and of the Disciples of St. Antony. They 797 
were enclosed in a Certain Island on Account of their Orthodoxy; the Miracles 
which they Wrought. 

List of the Places in which the Nicene Doctrines were Represented; Faith 799 

manifested by the Scythians; Vetranio, the Leader of this Race. 

At that Time, the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost was agitated, and it was decided 801 
that he is to be considered Consubstantial with the Father and the Son. 

Death of Liberius, Bishop of Rome. He is succeeded by Damasus and Syricius. 802 
Orthodox Doctrines prevail Everywhere throughout the West, except at Milan, 
where Auxentius is the High-Priest. Synod held at Rome, by which Auxentius 
is deposed; the Definition which it sent by Letter. 


Concerning St. Ambrose and his Elevation to the High Priesthood; how he 805 
persuaded the People to practice Piety. The Novatians of Phrygia and the 

Concerning Apolinarius: Father and Son of that Name. Vitalianus, the Presbyter. 807 

On being dislodged from One Kind of Heresy, they incline to Others. 

Eunomius and his Teacher Aetius, their Affairs and Doctrines. They were the 809 
first who broached One Immersion for the Baptism. 

Account Given, by Gregory the Theologian, of Apolinarius and Eunomius, in 811 

a Letter to Nectarius. Their Heresy was distinguished by the Philosophy of the 
Monks who were then Living, for the Heresy of these two held Nearly the Entire 

Of the Holy Men who flourished at this Period in Egypt. John, or Amon, Benus, 813 
Theonas, Copres, Helles, Elias, Apelles, Isidore, Serapion, Dioscorus, and 

Concerning the Monks of Theba'is: Apollos, Dorotheus; concerning Piammon, 815 
John, Mark, Macarius, Apollodorus, Moses, Paul, who was in Ferma, Pacho, 

Stephen, and Pior. 

Monks of Scetis: Origen, Didymus, Cronion, Orsisius, Putubatus, Arsion, 820 

Serapion, Ammon, Eusebius, and Dioscorus, the Brethren who are called Long, 

and Evagrius the Philosopher. 

Concerning the Monks of Nitria, and the Monasteries called Cells; about the 822 
One in Rhinocorura; about Melas, Dionysius, and Solon. 

Monks of Palestine: Hesycas, Epiphanius, who was afterwards in Cyprus, 824 

Ammonius, and Silvanus. 

Monks of Syria and Persia: Battheus, Eusebius, Barges, Halas, Abbo, Lazarus, 826 
Abdaleus, Zeno, Heliodorus, Eusebius of Carrae, Protogenes, and Aones. 

Monks of Edessa: Julianus, Ephraim Syrus, Barus, and Eulogius; Further, the 827 

Monks of Coele-Syria: Valentinus, Theodore, Merosas, Bassus, Bassonius; and 
the Holy Men of Galatia and Cappadocia, and Elsewhere; why those Saints until 
recently were Long-Lived. 

The Wooden Tripod and the Succession of the Emperor, through a Knowledge 829 
of its Letters. Destruction of the Philosophers; Astronomy. 

Expedition against the Sarmatians; Death of Valentinian in Rome; Valentinian 83 1 
the Younger proclaimed; Persecution of the Priests; Oration of the Philosopher 
Themistius, on account of which Valens was disposed to treat those who differed 
from him more Humanely. 



Concerning the Barbarians beyond the Danube, who were driven out by the 
Huns, and advanced to the Romans, and their Conversion to Christianity; 

Ulphilas and Athanarichus; Occurrences between them; whence the Goths 
received Arianism. 

Concerning Mania, the Phylarch of the Saracens. When the Treaty with the 836 
Romans was dissolved, Moses, their Bishop, who had been ordained by the 
Christians, renewed it. Narrative concerning the Ishmaelites and the Saracens, 
and their Goods; and how they began to be Christianized through Zocomus, 

Their Phylarch. 

Peter, having returned from Rome, regains the Churches of Egypt, after Lucius 839 

had given way; Expedition of Valens into the West against the Scythians. 

Saint Isaac, the Monk, predicts the Death of Valens. Valens in his Flight enters 840 

a Chaff- House, is consumed, and so yields up his Life. 

Book VII 841 

When the Romans are pressed by the Barbarians, Mavia sends Assistance, and 841 
some of the Populace effect a Victory. Gratian commands each to believe as he 

Gratian elects Theodosius of Spain to reign with him, Arianism prevails 842 

throughout the Eastern Churches except that of Jerusalem. Council of Antioch. 

The Settlement of the Presidency of the Churches. 

Concerning St. Meletius and Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch. Their Oath respecting 843 

the Episcopal See. 

Reign of Theodosius the Great; he was initiated into Divine Baptism by 844 

Ascholius, Bishop of Thessalonica. The Letters he addressed to those who did 
not hold the Definition of the Council of Nice. 

Gregory, the Theologian, receives from Theodosius the Government of the 845 
Churches. Expulsion of Demophilus, and of all who deny that the Son is 
“Consubstantial” with the Father. 

Concerning the Arians; and Further, the Success of Eunomius. Boldness of St. 847 

Amphilochius toward the Emperor. 

Concerning the Second Holy General Council, and the Place and Cause of its 849 

Convention. Abdication of Gregory the Theologian. 

Election of Nectarius to the See of Constantinople; his Birthplace and Education. 85 1 

Decrees of the Second General Council. Maximus, the Cynical Philosopher. 853 

Concerning Martyrius of Cilicia. Translation of the Remains of St. Paul the 855 
Confessor, and of Meletius, Bishop of Antioch. 


Ordination of Flavian as Bishop of Antioch, and Subsequent Occurrences on 
Account of the Oath. 

Project of Theodosius to unify all the Heresies. The Propositions made by Agelius 
and Sisinius, the Novatians. At another Synod, the Emperor received those only 
who represent Consubstantiality; those who held a different View he ejected 
from the Churches. 

Maximus the Tyrant. Concerning the Occurrences between the Empress Justina 
and St. Ambrose. The Emperor Gratian was killed by Guile. Valentinian and 
his Mother fled to Theodosius in Thessalonica. 

Birth of Honorius. Theodosius leaves Arcadius at Constantinople, and proceeds 
to Italy. Succession of the Novatian and other Patriarchs. Audacity of the Arians. 
Theodosius, after destroying the Tyrant, celebrates a Magnificent Triumph in 

Flavian and Evagrius, Bishops of Antioch. The Events at Alexandria upon the 
Destruction of the T emple of Dionysus. The Serapeum and the other Idolatrous 
Temples which were destroyed. 

In What Manner, and from What Cause, the Functions of the Presbyter, 
Appointed to Preside over the Imposition of Penance, were abolished. 
Dissertation on the Mode of Imposing Penance. 

Banishment of Eunomius by Theodosius the Great. Theophronius, his Successor; 
of Eutychus, and of Dorotheus, and their Heresies; of those called Psathyrians; 
Division of the Arians into Different Parties; those in Constantinople were more 

Another Heresy, that of the Sabbatians, is originated by the Novatians. Their 
Synod in Sangarus. Account in Greater Detail of the Easter Festival. 

A List Worthy of Study, Given by the Historian, of Customs among Different 
Nations and Churches. 

Extension of our Doctrines, and Complete Demolition of Idolatrous Temples. 
Inundation of the Nile. 

Discovery of the Honored Head of the Forerunner of our Lord, and the Events 
about it. 

Death of Valentinian the Younger, Emperor in Rome, through Strangling. The 
Tyrant Eugenius. Prophecy of John, the Monk of Thebais. 

Exaction of Tribute in Antioch, and Demolition of the Statues of the Emperor. 
Embassy headed by Flavian the Chief Priest. 

Victory of Theodosius the Emperor over Eugenius. 













Intrepid Bearing of St. Ambrose in the Presence of the Emperor Theodosius. 883 
Massacre at Thessalonica. Narrative of the other Righteous Deeds of this Saint. 

St. Donatus, Bishop of Euroea, and Theotimus, High-Priest of Scythia. 885 

St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, and a Particular Account of his Acts. 887 

Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, Zeno, and Ajax, Men Distinguished and Renowned 889 
for Virtue. 

Discovery of the Remains of the Prophets Habakkuk and Micah. Death of the 891 
Emperor Theodosius the Great. 

Book VIII 892 

Successors of Theodosius the Great. Rufinus, the Praetorian Prefect, is Slain. 892 

The Chief Priests of the Principal Cities. Differences among the Heretics. Account 
of Sisinius, Bishop of the Novatians. 

Education, Training, Conduct, and Wisdom of the Great John Chrysostom; his 894 
Promotion to the See; Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, becomes his Confirmed 

Rapid Promotion of John to the Bishopric, and more Vehement Grappling with 897 

its Affairs. He re-establishes Discipline in the Churches everywhere. By sending 
an Embassy to Rome, he abolished the Hostility to Flavian. 

Enterprise of Ga'inas, the Gothic Barbarian. Evils which he perpetrated. 898 

John swayed the People by his Teachings. Concerning the Woman, a Follower 901 
of Macedonius, on account of whom the Bread was turned into a Stone. 

Proceedings of John in Asia and Phrygia. Heraclides, Bishop of Ephesus, and 902 
Gerontius, Bishop of Nicomedia. 

Concerning Eutropius, Chief of the Eunuchs, and the Law enacted by him. On 904 
being turned from the Church, he was put to Death. Murmurs against John. 

Antiphonal Hymns against the Arians introduced by John. The Interests of the 905 
Orthodox are much augmented by the Teachings of John, while the Wealthy 
are More and More Enraged. 

Serapion, the Archdeacon, and St. Olympias. Some of the Celebrated Men 906 

insolently bear down upon John, traducing him as Impracticable and Passionate. 

Severian, Bishop of Gabales, and Antiochus, Bishop of Ptolemais. Dispute 907 

between Serapion and Severian. Reconciliation between them effected by the 

Question agitated in Egypt, as to whether God has a Corporeal Form. Theophilus, 909 

Bishop of Alexandria, and the Books of Origen. 


About the Four Brothers, called “The Long,” who were Ascetics, and of whom 910 
Theophilus was an Enemy; about Isidore and the Events which came about 
through these Four. 

These Four repair to John on account of his Interest; for this Reason, Theophilus 912 

was enraged, and prepares himself to fight against John. 

Perversity of Theophilus. St. Epiphanius: his Residence at Constantinople and 913 
Preparation to excite the People against John. 

The Son of the Empress and St. Epiphanius. Conference between the “Long 915 
Brothers” and Epiphanius, and his Re-Embarkation for Cyprus. Epiphanius 
and John. 

The Dispute between the Empress and John. Arrival of Theophilus from Egypt. 916 

Cyrinus, Bishop of Chalcedon. 

Council held by Theophilus and the Accusers of John in Rufinianae. John is 917 
summoned to attend, and not being present, was deposed by Them. 

Sedition of the People against Theophilus; and they traduced their Rulers. John 919 
was recalled, and again came to the See. 

Obstinancy of Theophilus. Enmity between the Egyptians and the Citizens of 921 
Constantinople. Flight of Theophilus. Nilammon the Ascetic. The Synod 
concerning John. 

The Statue of the Empress; what happened there; the Teaching of John; 923 

Convocation of another Synod against John; his Deposition. 

Calamities suffered by the People after the Expulsion of John. The Plots against 924 
him of Assassination. 

Unlawful Expulsion of John from his Bishopric. The Trouble which followed. 926 
Conflagration of the Church by Fire from Heaven. Exile of John to Cucusus. 

Arsacius elected to succeed John. The Evils wrought against the Followers of 928 
John. St. Nicarete. 

Eutropius the Reader, and the Blessed Olympian, and the Presbyter Tigrius, are 930 
persecuted on account of their Attachment to John. The Patriarchs. 

Since these Ills existed in the Church, Secular Affairs also fell into Disorder. The 932 
Affairs of Stilicho, the General of Honorius. 

Two Epistles from Innocent, the Pope of Rome, of which one was addressed to 933 

John Chrysostom, and the other to the Clergy of Constantinople concerning 

The Terrible Events which resulted from the Treatment of John. Death of the 936 
Empress Eudoxia. Death of Arsacius. And further concerning Atticus, the 
Patriarch, his Birthplace, and Character. 


Effort of Innocent, Bishop of Rome, to recall John through a Council. Concerning 938 
those who were sent by him to make Trial of the Matter. The Death of John 

Book IX 939 

Death of Arcadius, and Government of Theodosius the Younger. His Sisters. 939 
Piety, Virtue, and Virginity, of the Princess Pulcheria; her Divinely Loved Works; 
she educated the Emperor Befittingly. 

Discovery of the Relics of Forty Holy Martyrs. 941 

The Virtues of Pulcheria; Her Sisters. 944 

Truce with Persia. Honorius and Stilicho. Transactions in Rome and Dalmatia. 945 

The Different Nations took up Arms against the Romans, of whom some were, 946 

through the Providence of God defeated, and others brought to Terms of Amity. 

Alaric the Goth. He assaulted Rome, and straitened it by War. 947 

Innocent the Bishop of the Presbytery of Rome. He sent an Embassy to Alaric. 948 
Jovius, Prefect of Italy. Embassy dispatched to the Emperor. Events concerning 

Rebellion of Attalus and his General Heraclean; and how he eventually craved 949 
Forgiveness at the Feet of Honorius. 

The Disturbance which the Greeks and Christians had about Attalus. The 951 

Courageous Saros; Alaric, by a Stratagem, obtains Possession of Rome, and 
protected the Sacred Asylum of the Apostle Peter. 

A Roman Lady who manifested a Deed of Modesty. 952 

The Tyrants who in the West at that Time rebelled against Honorius. They are 953 
wholly destroyed on account of the Emperor's Love of God. 

Theodosiolus and Lagodius. The Races of the Vandals and Suevi. Death of 954 
Alaric. Flight of the Tyrants Constantine and Constans. 

Concerning Gerontius, Maximus, and the Troops of Honorius. Capture of 955 
Gerontius and his Wife; their Death. 

Constantine. The Army of Honorius and Edovicus his General. Defeat of 956 

Edovicus by Ulphilas, the General of Constantine. Death of Edovicus. 

Constantine throws aside the Emblems of Imperial Power, and is ordained as 957 
Presbyter; his Subsequent Death. Death of the other Tyrants who had conspired 
against Honorius. 

Honorius the Ruler, a Lover of God. Death of Honorius. His Successors, 958 

Valentinian, and Honoria his Daughter; the Peace which was then Worldwide. 


Discovery of the Relics of Zechariah the Prophet, and of Stephen the 959 


General Indexes 960 

General Index to Socrates' Ecceliastical History 961 

General Index to Sozomen's Ecceliastical History 998 

Indexes 1028 

Index of Scripture References 1029 

Greek Words and Phrases 1032 

German Words and Phrases 1040 

French Words and Phrases 1043 

Index of Pages of the Print Edition 1044 


ErheneaL Liknany 

This PDF file is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, The mission of 
the CCEL is to make classic Christian books available to the world. 

• This book is available in PDF, HTML, ePub, Kindle, and other formats. See 

• Discuss this book online at 

The CCEL makes CDs of classic Christian literature available around the world through the 
Web and through CDs. We have distributed thousands of such CDs free in developing 
countries. If you are in a developing country and would like to receive a free CD, please 
send a request by email to 

The Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a self supporting non-profit organization at 
Calvin College. If you wish to give of your time or money to support the CCEL, please visit 

This PDF file is copyrighted by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. It may be freely 
copied for non-commercial purposes as long as it is not modified. All other rights are re- 
served. Written permission is required for commercial use. 


Title Page. 






















The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. 





Revised, with Notes, by 




Prefatory Note. 

Prefatory Note. 



The basis of the present edition of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History is the translation in 
Bagster’s series mentioned in the Introduction, Part IV. The changes introduced, however, 
are numerous. The translation was found unnecessarily free; so far as the needs of the English 
idiom require freedom no fault could, of course, have been found with the translation; but 
the divergences from the original in multitudes of cases were not warranted by any such 
need; they were more probably induced by the prevailing style of rhetoric common in the 
days when the translation was made. The change which has gradually come about in this 
respect called for modifications in the present edition. Many more might have been intro- 
duced without damage to the work. But it was felt that the scope and purpose of the edition 
only called for the most necessary of these changes. 

In the preparation of the notes the editions of Hussey and Reading, containing Valesius’ 
and Reading’s annotations, were freely used. Whenever a note was taken bodily from these, 
it has been quoted and duly credited. It was thought best, however, usually to condense and 
reduce the number and bulk of these notes and introduce sparingly such new notes as were 
suggested by more recent study in ecclesiastical history. 

The Introduction is almost altogether dependent on the literature quoted in Part I. The 
writer claims no original discovery respecting Socrates or his work. The facts had been dili- 
gently collected by his predecessors; he has simply rearranged them and put them into ex- 
pression such as, to his mind, suits the requirements of the plan of the series. 

A.C. Zenos. 




I. Sources and Literature. 1 

U. Chevalier in his Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age gives the following 
list of authorities on Socrates Scholasticus. 

Baronius:* Ann. [1593] 439, 39. Cf. Pagi, Crit. [1689] 9, 11,427, 15-6. 

Bellarmin Labbe: S. E. [1728] 164. 

Brunet:* Manuel [1864] V. 425. 

Cave:* S. E. [1741] I. 427. 

Ceillier:* Hist. Aut. Eccl. [1747] XIII. p. 669-88. (2 a VIII. 514-25.) 

Darling:* Cyclopaedia Bibliographica; Authors. 

Du Pin:* Bibl. Aut Eccl. [1702] III. ii. 183. 

Ebed-Jesu: Cat. Scr. Eccl 29. (Assemani: Bibl. Orient. III. 141.) 

Fabricius:* Bibl. Grcec. [1714] VI. 117-21. (2 a VII. 423-7.) 

Graesse:* Tresor [1865] VI. 1, 429. 

Hoffmann: Lex. Bibl. Gr. [1836] III. 625-6. 

Holzhausen: Commentatio defontibus quibus Socrates, Sozomenus ac Theodoretus usi 
sunt, &c. Gotting. 1825. 


Nouvelle Biog. Gen.:* [1868] XLIV. 127-8. 

Nolte: 2 Tubing. Quartalschrift [1860] 518; [1861] 417-51. 

Patrologia Graeca* (Migne) LXVII. 9-26. 

Sigebert: Gembl. S. E. 10. 

Tillemont: 3 Hist. desEmp. [1738] VI. 119-22. 

Trithemius: Scr. Eccl. 137. 

Vossius: Hist. Grceca [1651] 259. 

1 All works marked with a star in Chevalier’s list were used in the present edition, and all but two or three of 
those added to the list of Chevalier. 

2 Nolte’s article is on the textual emendations needed in the edition of Socrates. The text of our historian has 
not been as thoroughly and completely examined and corrected as other writings. Valesius’ edition (Hussey) 
gives an account of a few mss. examined by himself; nothing further has been done of any importance. It is to 
be hoped that Gebhardt and Harnack may find it convenient to incorporate a new collation and revision in their 
Texte und Untersuchungen. 

3 All works marked with a star in Chevalier’s list were used in the present edition, and all but two or three of 
those added to the list of Chevalier. 


Sources and Literature. 

Walford: 4 in Bohn’s Eccl. Libr. VI. 1853. 

To these there should be added important notices of Socrates or his Ecclesiastical History 
as follows: 

F. C Baur: Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung Tubing. 1852, p. 7-32. 

J. G. Dowling: An Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History. 

Ad. Harnack: In Herzog-Plitt’s Real Enkyclop. vol. 14, Sokrates und Sozomenos and in 
Encyclop. Britannica, Socrates. 

K. O. Muller: History of Greek Literature: English translation and continuation by 
Donaldson, Vol. III. 

Rossler: Bibliothek der Kirchenvdter. 

Jeep: Quellenuntersuchungen zu der griech. Kirchenhistorikern. Leipsic, 1884. 

Sarrazin: De Theodoro Lectore, Theophanis Fonte prcecipuo, 1881. 

Staudlin: Gesch. und Literatur der Kirchen-geschichte, 1827. 

Overbeck: Theol. Liter. -Zeitung, 1879. No. 20. 

Also articles on Socrates in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and 
Mythology (by John Calrow Means) and Smith & Wace: Dictionary of Christian Biography 
(William Milligan), as well as passing notices in standard ecclesiastical histories such as 
Neander, Hase, Killen, Schaff, &c., and Introductory notices of Valesius (Hussey), Parker, 
Bright, &c. 

4 E. Walford, A.M., appears as the translator of Sozomen, not of Socrates. See IV. of Introduction, note 6. 


Life of Socrates. 

II. Life of Socrates. 

We cannot but regret the fact that the age in which Socrates lived cared little, if at all, 
about recording the lives of its literary men. The only sources of information in this respect 
are the writings themselves of these literary men and the public records, in case they held 
the double character of literary men and political or ecclesiastical officials. As Socrates did 
not participate in the public affairs of his day, our information respecting him is confined 
to the scanty and incidental items we may gather from his history. As he was not very fond 
of speaking of himself, these data are few and often of doubtful significance. In fact, the re- 
construction of his biography from these scattered items is a matter of difficult critical in- 

All that these inadequate materials yield of his biography may be summed up as follows: 

He was born in Constantinople. 5 He nowhere mentions his parents or ancestry, and no 
information has reached us on this point from any other source. The year of his birth is in- 
ferred from what he says of his education at the hands of the grammarians Helladius and 
Ammonias. 6 7 8 These grammarians were originally Egyptian priests living in Alexandria — the 
former of Jupiter, and the latter of Pithecus (Simius); they fled from their native city in 
consequence of the disturbances which followed the cleansing of the Mithreum and destruc- 
tion of the Serapeum by the bishop Theophilus. It appears that at that time an open conflict 
took place between the pagans and Christians, and many of the pagans having taken part 
in the tumult, laid themselves open to criminal prosecution, and to avoid this, took refuge 
in other cities, — a large number of them naturally in Constantinople. Th eChronicon of 
Marcellinus puts this event in the consulship of Timasius and Promotus, i.e. 389 a.d. Now, 
as Socrates was very young when he came to these grammarians, and it was the custom to 
send children to the schools at the age of ten, Valesius has reasoned that Socrates must have 


been born in 379; others have named 380 as a more probable date for this event. Other 
data for ascertaining the exact date of Socrates’ birth are of very doubtful significance. He 
speaks, for instance, of Auxanon, 9 a Novatian presbyter, from whom he had received certain 

5 So he says in V. 24. 

6 V. 16. On the destruction of the Serapeum, see Sozom. VII. 15; Theodeoret, H. E. V. 22; Nicephor. XII. 25; 
Eunap. Aides, par. 77; Suidas, Zapcmu;. Helladius, according to Suidas, wrote a Dictionary, besides other works. 
Cf. s. v. ’E\\d6io(;. 

7 Kopidri veoc tov. 

8 Valesius’ reasoning is based on the assumption that Socrates was sent to the grammarians as soon as they 
arrived at Constantinople. If, however, an interval of several years elapsed before his going to them, the date of 
his birth must be put correspondingly later. The only certainty reached through this datum is that he was born 
nor earlier than 379. 

9 I. 13 and II. 38. 


Life of Socrates. 

information; but as Auxanon lived till after the accession of Theodosius the Younger in 408 
a.d., it is impossible to draw any conclusion from this fact. So again Socrates mentions the 
patriarchate of Chrysostom in Constantinople (398-403) as if he had received his information 
at second hand, 10 and thus implies that he was perhaps too young to be an interested eye- 
witness of the events of that period. But how young he was we cannot infer from this fact; 
and so cannot take the patriarchate of Chrysostom as a starting-point for our chronology 
of Socrates’ life. Still another item that might have served as a datum in the case, had it been 
definitely associated with a known event in Socrates’ career, is his mention of a dispute 
between the Eunomians and Macedonians which took place in Constantinople in 394. 11 If 
he were an eye-witness of this quarrel, he must have been old enough to take an interest in 
it, hence about fourteen or fifteen years of age. But this conclusion, even though it coincides 
exactly with the date found previously (379), is not at all certain, as he does not state that 
he was an eye-witness; and if the reasoning is correct, then he was not too young to be inter- 
ested in the events of Chrysostom’s patriarchate which occurred a little later. Thus, on the 
whole, while it is extremely probable that Valesius is right in setting the date of Socrates’ 
birth in 379, this event may have taken place several years later. 

Nothing further is known of Socrates’ early life and education except that he studied 
under Ammonius and Helladius, as already noted. Valesius has conjectured from the mention 
of Troilus, the famous rhetorician, that Socrates must have received instruction from this 

i o 

teacher also, but with no sufficient foundation. 

Socrates always remained a resident of Constantinople, and was evidently proud of his 
native city, and fond of alluding to its history as well as its actual condition. He relates how 
the Emperor Constantine enlarged it and gave it its present name in place of the former 
heathen name it bore (Byzantium). 14 He speaks of its populousness, and at the same time 
of its ability to support its many inhabitants from its abundant resources. 15 He looks on its 
public structures very much as the ancient Israelite did on the ‘towers and battlements’ of 
Jerusalem. He mentions especially the walls built by Theodosius the Younger, the Forums 

10 VI. 3, and toccpaoi. 

11 V. 24. 

12 VII. 1 and 2. See note on VII. 1. Socrates speaks of Troilus as a native of Side in Pamphilia, and mentions 
Eusebius and Silvanus and Alabius (both the latter bishops) as distinguished pupils of Troilus, and finally adds 
that Anthemius, who during the minority of Theodosius acted as regent, was dependent on the influence of 
Troilus; in which connection he further adds that Troilus was not inferior to Anthemius in political sagacity. 

13 Professor Milligan, in Smith & Wace’s Dictionary of Biography, even says that Socrates assisted Troilus, 
but adduces no proof for the statement. 

14 I. 16. 

15 IV. 16, end; VII. 37. 


Life of Socrates. 

of Constantine and Theodosius, the Amphitheatre, the Hippodrome with its Delphic tripods, 
the baths, especially that called Zeuxippus, 16 the churches of which he names at different 
times as many as five; viz.: the church of the Apostles, erected by Constantine especially for 

1 <-r 

the burying of the emperors and priests; the church of St. Sophia, which he calls ‘the great 
church’; the church of St. Irene, located in the same enclosure as that of St. Sophia; the 
church of St. Acacius, together with its appendages; 19 and the chapel of St. John, built seven 
miles outside the city." Besides these he also mentions circumstantially the porch and 
shambles and porphyry column near which Arius was attacked with his sudden and fatal 
illness, the region called Sycae, and the tomb of Alexander the Paphlagonian, who was 


tortured and died in prison during the temporary supremacy of the Arians. 

Although there is no distinct mention of his ever having left the great city," it is improb- 
able that, like his great Athenian namesake, he was averse to traveling. In fact, his frequent 
mention of the customs of Paphlagonians, Thessalians, Cyprians, and others with minuteness 
of detail, rather gives the impression that he had visited these places. 

According to the preponderance of evidence Socrates was trained as a pleader or advoc- 
ate, and practiced this profession for a time. Hence his cognomen of Scholasticus , 24 At the 
instance of a certain Theodorus he undertook to write a continuation of the Ecclesiastical 
History of Eusebius, bringing it down to the seventeenth consulate of the Emperor 
Theodosius the Younger (439 a.d.). 25 

16 II. 16. 

17 1. 40. 

18 II. 16; I. 37. 

19 II. 38 and VI. 23. 

20 VI. 6. 

21 1. 38. 

22 II. 38. 

23 V. 8. 

24 The various meanings of this word may be found in Du Cange’s Glossarium Medice et Infimce Grcecitates 
and in Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. From its primary meaning of ‘student’ it 
came to be applied to any one who had passed through study to the professions, of which the advocate’s was 
one. From the absence of the cognomen in Photius’ account of Socrates, Bibliotheca Cod. 28, as well as in that 
of Nicephorus Callisti, H. E. 1. 1, Hamburger, as quoted by Fabricius, Bibl. Grcec. VII. p. 423, note g, and Ceillier, 
Auteurs Sacres, XIII. p. 669, doubt whether the title was rightly applied to him. Valesius argues from internal 
grounds that Socrates was a layman and a lawyer. Harnack, on the other hand, denies that there is any evidence 
of juristic knowledge in Socrates’ History, even in such passages as I. 30, 31, and V. 18. 

25 VII. 48 


Life of Socrates. 

This year is the last definitely mentioned in his work. He must have lived, however, 
until some time after that date, as he speaks of a revision of the first two books of the His- 
tory. How much later it is impossible to tell: it was not certainly till after the end of 
Theodosius’ reign; for then he would have brought down his history to that event, and thus 
completed his seventh book according to the plan, which is evident in his whole work, of 
assigning one complete book to each one of the emperors comprised in his period. 

Of the character of Socrates as a man we know as little as of the events of his life. Evid- 
ently he was a lover of peace, as he constantly speaks with abhorrence of the atrocities of 
war, and deprecates even differences in theological standpoint on account of the strife and 
ill-feeling which they engender. 

Socrates’ knowledge of Latin has been inferred from his use of Rufinus, but Dodwell 
conjectures that Socrates read Rufinus in a Greek translation, and that such translation had 
been made by Gelasius. 

Inasmuch as he lived in, and wrote of, an age of controversies, and his testimony must 
be weighed according to his theological standpoint, this standpoint has been made the 
subject of careful study. There is no doubt left by his explicit declarations about his agreement 
in the main with the position of the orthodox or catholic church of his age, as far as these 
are distinguished from those of Arians, Macedonians, Eunomians, and other heretics. But 
as to his attitude towards Novatianism there has been considerable difference of opinion. 
That he was a member of the Novatian sect has been held after Nicephorus Callisti by 
Baronius, Labbseus, and others, and argued from various considerations drawn from his 
work. Some of these are: that he gives the succession of the Novatian bishops of Con- 

ia o 1 

stantinople; that he knows and mentions Novatian bishops of other places, e.g. of Rome, 
of Scythia, of Nicaea; that he mentions Novatian churches as existing in Phrygia and 

26 II. 1. 

27 I. 12, 19; III. 19; IV. 24, 26. 

28 De jure sacerdotali, p. 278. Cf. on translation by Gelasius, Smith & Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
II. p. 621. 

29 Niceph. H. E. I. 1. 

30 Cf. V. 21; VII. 6, 12, 17. 

31 V. 14; VII. 9, 11. 

32 VII. 46. 

33 VII. 25. 


Life of Socrates. 

■2 A or O/T oy OO 

Paphlagonia, in Lydia, in Cyzicum, in Nicaea, in Nicomedia and Cotyaeum, and 
in Alexandria ; 39 that he knows and describes their church edifices ; 40 that he knows their 
internal troubles and trials , 41 especially their position on the Paschal controversy ; 42 that he 
gives vent to expressions of a sympathetic nature with the rigor practiced by the Novatian 
church ; 43 that he records the criticisms of Novatians on Chrysostom and the opinion that 
his deposition was a just retribution for his persecution of the Novatians ; 44 that he attributes 
miracles to Paul, Novatian bishop of Constantinople , 45 takes the testimony of Novatian 
witnesses , 46 rejects current charges against them , 47 and finally speaks of the death of 
Novatian as a martyrdom. 

On the other hand, Valesius, followed by most of the more recent writers on Socrates, 
claims that all these facts are due to the extreme impartiality of the historian, his sense of 
the justice due to a sect whose good he appreciated, together with his lack of interest in the 
differences between their standpoint and that of the Catholics. Socrates treats other 
heretical sects with the same generous consideration, e.g. the Arian Goths, whose death he 
records as a martyrdom ; 49 and yet he has never been suspected of inclining towards 
Arianism. At the same time he mentions the Novatians as distinct from the Catholic 
Church , 50 and everywhere implies that the Church for him is the latter. 

To account for the apparently different conclusions to which these two series of consid- 
erations point, some have assumed that Socrates had been a Novatian, but before the writing 
of his history had either gradually drifted into the Catholic Church, or for reasons of prudence 

34 IV. 28. 

35 VI. 19. 

36 II. 38; III. 11. 

37 VII. 12. 

38 IV. 28. 

39 VII. 7. 

40 II. 38; VII. 39. 

41 V. 21. 

42 V. 22. 

43 IV. 28; V. 19; VI. 21,22; VII. 25. 

44 VI. 19 and 21. 

45 VII. 17, 39. 

46 I. 10, 13; II. 38; IV. 28. 

47 V. 10. 

48 IV. 28. 

49 IV. 33. 

50 VI. 20, 23; IV. 28; V. 19; VII. 3. 


Life of Socrates. 

had severed his connection with the lesser body and entered the state church, retaining, 
however, throughout his whole course a strong sympathy for the communion of his earlier 
days . 51 Others attribute his favorable attitude towards Novatianism to his general indifference 
for theological refinements, others to mere intellectual sympathy for their tenets. In the 
absence of any definite utterance of his own on the subject, a combination of the last two 
motives comes nearest to sufficiently explaining the position of Socrates, although his rather 
unappreciative estimate of Chrysostom and his severe censure of Cyril of Alexandria 
are both more easily accounted for on the ground of a more intimate relation between the 
historian and the Novatians, as both of the above-named eminent men were declared enemies 
of Novatianism. 

In other respects it cannot be doubted that the creed of Socrates was very simple and 
primitive. The one essential article in it was the doctrine of the Trinity; all others were sub- 
ordinate. Even as to the Trinity, he would have accepted a much less rigid definition than 
the one propounded at Nicaea. As, however, the latter had been generally adopted by the 
church, he finds himself defending it against Arianism as well as against all sorts of com- 
promise. He believed in the inspiration of the great synods as well as in that of the Scriptures, 
and was satisfied to receive without questioning the decisions of the former as he did the 
teachings of the latter. He was not, however, particular about the logical consequences of 
his theological positions, but ready to break off upon sufficient extra-theological reasons. 
His warm defense of Origen and arraignment of Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and 
Theophilus , 54 for attempting to belittle the great Alexandrian, shows how his admiration 
of a genius came into and modified his estimates. He considered all disputes on dogmatic 
statements as unnecessary and injurious, due to misunderstanding; and this chiefly because 
the parties in the dispute did not take pains to understand one another, and perhaps did 
not desire to do so because of personal jealousies or previous and private hatreds . 55 He is 
willing to refer such lawful questions on doctrinal points as may come before him to the 
clergy for decision, and is never backward about confessing his ignorance and incompetency 
to deal with theological refinements. 

He makes a cogent defense of the use of pagan writings by Christians , 56 alleging that 
some of the pagan writers were not far from the knowledge of the true God; that Paul himself 
had read and used their works; that the neglect or refusal to use them could only lead to ig- 

51 So Harnack in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encykl. and Encyclop. Britan. 

52 VI. 3,4,5,15, 18,19,21. 

53 VII. 15. 

54 VI. 13, 17; VII. 45. 

55 I. 23; cf. also II. 40, end: aXX' omnc, |if)v raura E^ei, &c. 

56 III. 16. 


Life of Socrates. 

norance and inability to meet pagans in debate; that St. Paul’s ‘prove all things, hold fast 

P'7 co 

that which is good,’ and Jesus Christ’s ‘be ye approved bankers’ gave distinct support 
to the study of the whole field of knowledge; and that whatever is worth studying in non- 
Christian literature is capable of being separated from the rest and known as the truth. So- 
crates himself was acquainted more or less extensively with the works of Sophocles, Euripides, 
Plato, Xenophon, from among the classic writers, besides those of Porphyry, Libanius, Julian, 
and Themistius of a later period, and perhaps with those of many others. 

One more characteristic of Socrates must be mentioned; viz., his respect for the church 
and its institutions. He had a high regard for clergymen in virtue of their ordination. And 
although, as already shown, he took occasion to express himself critically of the highest 
dignitaries, such as Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, yet the person of a bishop or 
presbyter is in a certain sense surrounded by sacredness to him. Monks are models of piety. 
In his eulogy of Theodosius the Younger , 59 he compares the emperor’s devoutness to that 
of the monks, making the latter, of course, the high-water mark in that respect. But even as 
respects the ordinances of the church, his regard for them was not slavish or superstitious. 
He advocates extremely broad views in regard to the observance of Easter, considering a 
very precise determination of it too formalistic to be consistent with the liberty of the New 
Dispensation. So, likewise, in regard to many other of the ceremonies of the church, he takes 
pains to show by a description of the various ways in which they were performed in different 
quarters that they were not essential, but of subordinate importance . 60 

57 1 Thess. v. 21, with which he combines Col. ii. 8. The latter passage can only be acted upon, according to 
Socrates, as the ground of a knowledge of that philosophy which is to be guarded against as vain. 

58 TIveoGe SoKipoi TpaTt£(lTai. This saying is sometimes attributed to Paul, but more usually to Jesus. It occurs 
in Clem. Horn. II. 51; III. 50; XVIII. 20; Ap. Const. 36, 37; Epiph. Hcer. 44. 2; Orig. (in Joan.) IV. 283; Clem. Alex. 
Strom. I. 28; Eus. H. E. VII. 7, 3. 

59 VII. 22. 

60 V. 22. 


Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 

III. Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History. 

Until the beginning of the fourth century historiography remained a pagan science. 
With the exception of the Acts of the Apostles and its apocryphal imitations, no sort of at- 
tempt had been made to record even the annals of the Christian Church. At the opening of 
the fourth century Eusebius conceived the idea of writing a history which should include a 
complete account of the Church’s life to his own days. Hence he has correctly been called 
the Father of Church History. His work was done so satisfactorily to his contemporaries 
and immediate successors that none of them undertook to go over the same field again. 61 
They estimated the thoroughness and accuracy of his work much higher than later ages 
have done. But this respect, which enhanced the magnitude of his work in their eyes, at the 
same time inspired many of them with a desire to imitate him. 

Thus a school of church historians arose, and a number of continuations of Eusebius’ 
History were undertaken. Of these, six are known to have seen the light: three of these again 
are either in part or wholly lost; viz., those of Philippus Sidetes, of Philastorgius, and of 
Hesychius. The first because of internal characteristics which made it difficult to use; the 
second because its author was a heretic (an Arian), and with the wane of the sect to which 
he belonged, his work lost favor and was gradually ostracized by the orthodox, and thus was 
lost, with the exception of an abstract preserved by Photius; and the third, for reasons un- 
known and undiscoverable, met with the same fate, not leaving even as much as an abstract 
behind. The remaining three are the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. That of 
Theodoret begins with the rise of Arianism, and ends with Theodore of Mopsuestia (429 
a.d.). That of Sozomen was begun with the purpose of including the history of the years 
between 323 (date of the overthrow of Licinius by Constantine) and 439 (the seventeenth 
consulship of Theodosius the Younger), but for some reason was closed with the death of 
the Emperor Honorius (423), and so covers just one hundred years. The work of Socrates, 
being evidently older than either of the other two, is more directly a continuation of the 
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. The motives which actuated him to continue the narratives 
of Eusebius may be gathered from the work to be his love for history, especially that of 


his own times, his respect for Eusebius, and the exhortation of Theodorus, to whom the 

61 That this was not due to a general conviction that one history of a period rendered another of the same 
period unnecessary is evident from the fact that the period immediately succeeding is treated of by three successive 
historians, and that the second of these, at least, knows and uses the work of his predecessor. 

62 Harnack, however, successfully proves that Socrates’ ideal of history, in spite of his love for it, was far from 
being the scientific idea which existed among pagan writers even of the age preceding his own. Cf. Herzog-Plitt, 
Real-Encyk. Vol. 14, p. 413 sq. 

63 VI. 1. 


Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 

work is dedicated. 64 The author opens with a statement of his purpose to take up the account 
where Eusebius had left it off, and to review such matters as, according to his judgment, 
had not been adequately treated by his predecessor. Accordingly he begins with the accession 
of Constantine (306 a.d.), when the persecution begun by Diocletian came to an end, and 
stops with the year 439. He mentions the number of years included in his work as 140. As 
a matter of fact, only 133 years are recorded; but the number given by the author is doubtless 
not meant to be rather a round than a precise number. The close of his history is the seven- 
teenth consulship of Theodosius the Younger — the same as the proposed end of Sozomen’s 
work. Why Socrates did not continue his history later is not known, except perhaps because, 
as he alleges, peace and prosperity seemed to be assured to the church, and history is made 
not in time of peace, but in the turmoils and disturbances of war and debate. The period 
covered by the work is very eventful. It is during this period that three of the most important 
councils of the church were held: those of Nicaea (325), of Constantinople (381), and the 
first council of Ephesus (431), besides the second of Ephesus, called the “Robbers’ Council” 
(AporpiKi)), and that of Chalcedon, which were held not much later. It is this period which 
saw the church coming to the ascendant. Instead of its being persecuted, or even merely 
tolerated, it then becomes dominant. With its day of peace from without comes the day of 
its internal strife, and so various sects and heresies spring up and claim attention in church 
history. Socrates appreciated the importance which these contentions gave to his work. 65 

Geographically Socrates’ work is limited to the East. The western branch of the church 
is mentioned in it only as it enters into relations with the eastern. The division of the history 
into seven books is made on the basis of the succession in the eastern branch of the Roman 
Empire. The seven books cover the reigns of eight eastern emperors. Two of these 
reigns — that of Julian (361-363) and that of Jovian (363-364) — were so brief that they are 
combined and put into one book, but otherwise the books are each devoted to the reign of 
one emperor. The first book treats of the church under Constantine the Great (306-337); 
the second, of the period under Constantius II. (337-360); the third, of that under Julian 
and Jovian taken together (360-364); the fourth, of the church under Valens (364-378); the 
fifth, of Theodosius the Great (379-395); the sixth, of Arcadius (395-408); and the seventh, 
to those years of Theodosius the Younger (408-439) which came within the period of So- 
crates’ work. 

64 Cf. II. 1; VI. Int.; VII. 47. This Theodorus is simply addressed as iepe tou 0eou av0ptoTt£, from which it has 
been rightly inferred that he was an ordained presbyter. The view that Theodore of Mopsuestia is the person 
addressed has been proved to be erroneous from the date of his death, 429 a.d. The Ecclesiastical History was 
no doubt completed after that event, and could not have contained an address to the eminent Theodore. 

65 VII. 47. 


Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 

As the title of the work (’EKKAr|cnacmKf| 'Iaropia) indicates, the subject is chiefly the 
vicissitudes and experiences of the Christian Church; but the author finds various reasons 
for interweaving with the account of ecclesiastical affairs some record also of the affairs of 
the state. His statement 66 of these reasons puts first among them the relief his readers would 
experience by passing from the accounts of the perpetual wranglings of bishops to something 
of a different character; second, the information which all ought to have on secular as well 
as ecclesiastical matters; and third, the interlacing of these two lines, on account of which 
the understanding of the one cannot be full without some knowledge of the other. ‘By a sort 
of sympathy,’ says he, ‘the church takes part in the disturbances of the state,’ and ‘since the 
emperors became Christians, the affairs of the church have become dependent on them, 
and the greatest synods have been held and are held at their bidding.’ It cannot be said, 
however, that Socrates either thoroughly realized or attempted any systematic treatment of 
his subject from the point of view of the true relations of church and state; he simply had 
the consciousness that the two spheres were not as much dissociated as one might assume. 

On the general character of Socrates’ History it may be said that, compared with those 
produced by his contemporaries, it is a work of real merit, surpassing in some respects even 
that of his great predecessor, Eusebius. The latter has confused his account by adopting, 
under the influence of his latest informant, differing versions of facts already narrated, 
without erasing the previous versions or attempting to harmonize or unify them. Compare 
with this feature Socrates’ careful and complete revision of his first two books on obtaining 
new and more trustworthy information. 

In the collection of his facts Socrates everywhere tried to reach primary sources. A great 
portion of his work is drawn from oral tradition, the accounts given by friends and country- 
men, the common, but not wild, rumors of the capital, and the transient literature of the 
day. Whenever he depends on such information, Socrates attempts to reach as far as possible 


the accounts of eye-witnesses, and appends any doubts he may have as to the truth of the 
statements they make. Of written works he has used for the period where his work and that 
of Eusebius overlap the latter’s Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine -, 69 for other 
events he follows Rufinus, abandoning him, however, in his second edition, whenever he 


conflicts with more trustworthy authorities. He has also made use of Archelaus’ Acts, of 

66 V. Int. 

67 II. 1. The new information here referred to is drawn from the works of Athanasius, which had come into 
the hands of the author. Cf. II. 17. 

68 I. Int.; V. 19; VI. Int. 

69 1. 8. 

70 I. 12, 19; II. 1; III. 19; IV. 24,26. 

71 1. 22. 


Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 


Sabinus’ Collection of the Acts of the Synods, which he criticises for unfairness, “ Epiphanius’ 

70 HA. 7 c H 77 

Ancoratus, George of Laodicea, Athanasius’ Apolog., de Syn., and de Deer. Nic., 
Evagrius, Palladius, Nestorius, and Origen. Christian writers before Origen are 
known to him and mentioned by him, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Apollinaris 
the Elder, Serapion, and others; but he does not seem to have used their works as sources, 
probably because they threw no light on the subject at hand, his period being entirely different 
from that in which they flourished. Besides these writers, Socrates has also used public 
documents, pastoral and episcopal letters, decrees, acts, and other documents not previously 
incorporated in written works. Some of these the author has used, but does not quote in 
extenso, on account of their length. “ Of the sources that he might have used, but has not, 
maybe mentioned Dexippus, Eunapius (xpovncf] iaropla), Olympiodorus (Aoyoi loropiKof), 
and especially Zosimus, his contemporary (Iaropla via). Whether these were unknown to 
him, or whether he deemed it unnecessary to make use of the information given by them, 
or considered them untrustworthy, it cannot be ascertained. It is sufficient to say that for 
the period he covers, and the geographical limitation he has put on his work, his array of 
facts is sufficiently large and to the purpose. The use he makes of these facts also shows 
sufficiently the historian as thorough as he could be considering the time and environment 
in which he flourished. There is an evident attempt throughout his work at precision. He 
marks the succession of bishops, the years in which each event took place by the consulships 
and Olympiads of Roman and Greek history. He has made painstaking investigations on 
various topics, such as the different usages in various localities, respecting the observance 
of Easter, the performance of the rites of baptism and marriage, the manner of fasting, of 


church assemblies, and other ecclesiastical usages. His accuracy has been questioned from 

72 I. 8; II. 15, 17, 20; III. 10, 25; IV. 12, 22. 

73 V. 24. 

74 1. 24. 

75 II. 28; III. 8. 

76 II. 37. 

77 VI. 13. 

78 III. 7. 

79 IV. 23. 

80 VII. 19-24. 

81 III. 7. 

82 II. 17. 

V. 22. 



Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 


the time of Photius to our own days. It cannot be denied that there are a number of errors 


in the History. He confused Maximian and Maximin. He ascribes three ‘Creeds’ to the 
first Council of Sirmium, whereas these belonged to other councils. In general he is confused 


on the individuals to whom he ascribes the authorship of the Sirmian creeds. Similar 
confusion and lack of trustworthiness is noticed in his version of the sufferings of Paul of 
Constantinople and the vicissitudes of the life of Athanasius. He has wrongly given the 
number of those who dissented from the decision of the Council of Nicaea as five. The letter 
of the Council only mentions two, — Theonas and Secundus. The exile of Eusebius and 
Theognis is ascribed to a later period and a different cause by Jerome and Philostorgius, 
and it is generally conceded that Socrates’ information was erroneous on this subject also. 
He is incorrect on several particulars in the lives of Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as also 
in assigning the attack at night on the church of St. Theonas to the usurpation of Gregory, 


the Arian bishop of Alexandria. 

The chronology of Socrates is generally accurate to about the beginning of the sixth 
book, or the year 398. A number of errors are found in it after that. But even before the date 
named, the dates of the Council of Sardica (347) and of the death of Athanasius (373, for 
which Socrates gives 371) are given wrong. St. Polycarp’s martyrdom is also put out of its 


proper place by about one hundred years. Valens’ stay at Antioch and persecution of the 
orthodox is put too early. 89 The Olympiads are given wrong. 90 

Socrates is generally ignorant of the affairs of the Western Church. He gives a cursory 
account of Ambrose, but says nothing of the great Augustine, or even of the Donatist con- 
troversy, in spite of all its significance and also of the extreme probability that he knew of 
it; as Pelagius and Celestius, who traveled in the East about this time, could not but have 
made the Eastern Church acquainted with its details. In speaking of the Arian council of 
Antioch in 341, he seems to think that the Roman bishop had a sort of veto-power over the 
decisions of Occidental councils. The only legitimate inference, however, from the language 
of the bishop’s claim is that he thought he had a right to be invited to attend in common 

84 Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 28. aXXa Kai ev toR doypaai ou Xiav dKpL(3f|(;. Whether in this phrase he meant to accuse 
Socrates with inaccuracy in the narration of facts or indifference to theological dogma is not very clear. Probably 
the former. 

85 1. 2. 

86 II. 30. 

87 II. 11. 

88 V. 22. 

89 IV. 17. 

90 On the chronology of Socrates, see Harnack and Jeep. 


Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 

with the other bishops of Italy . 91 So, again, on the duration of the fast preceding Easter 
among the western churches, he makes the mistaken statement that it was three weeks, and 
that Saturdays and Sundays were excepted. 

Finally, the credence which Socrates gives to stories of miracles and portents must be 
noted as a blemish in his history. On the other hand, he was certainly not more credulous 
than his contemporaries in this respect; many of them, if we are to judge from Sozomen as 
an illustration, were much more so. The age was not accustomed to sifting accounts critically 
with a view to the elimination of the untrue. Socrates shows in this respect the historical 
instinct in the matter of distinguishing between various degrees of probability and credibility, 
but does not seem to exercise this instinct in dealing with accounts of the prodigious. 

To offset these faults we must take account, on the other hand, of the persistent and 
successful attempt of our historian at impartiality. Of all the Christian writers of his day he 
is the fairest towards those who differed from the creed of his church. No one else has done 
justice to Julian, or to the various heretical sects of the day, as Socrates has. To avoid even 
the appearance of partiality, he makes a rule for himself not to speak in terms of praise of 
any living person; and it must be said that he faithfully observes this rule, making but one 
exception in favor of the emperor Theodosius the Younger . 94 Of this prince he gives a eulo- 
gistic picture, altogether different from the representations universally found in the other 
historians of the age . 95 His independence of judgment is more signally manifested in his 
estimates of ecclesiastics, especially the more prominent ones , 96 bordering at times on unjust 
severity. ‘In short,’ says Harnack, summing up his estimate of Socrates, ‘the rule to be applied 
to Socrates is that his learning and knowledge can be trusted only a little, but his good will 
and straightforwardness a great deal. Considering the circumstances under which he wrote 
and the miseries of the times, it can only be matter for congratulation that such a man should 


have been our informant and that his work has been preserved to us. 

Socrates’ style is characterized by simplicity and perspicuity. From the very start he in- 


forms us that he is about to make a new departure in this respect. Eusebius’ language was 

91 II. 8 and 17. 

92 III. 1, 12, 14,21,23. 

93 VI. Int. 

94 VII. 22. 

95 Cf. Sozomen, IX. 1, and Gibbon, IV. 163. 

96 Cf. attitude towards Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, above alluded to; also his censure of pride and 
contention among members of the clergy. See V. Int. 15, 23; VI. 6; VII. 1 1, 29. 

97 In Encycl. Britan. 

98 I. 1, ou cppaoEux; oyKou cppovTi(ovT£(; ; so in III. 1, pridek; £7ti(r|T£LTU) Kop7tov (ppdaeux;; and VI. Int., ”Ia0i 
Se ijpdc; pf| EartoudaKEvai 7t£pi rf)v cppaaiv, where he adds that if he had attempted a different style, he might 
have failed of his purpose of writing a popular history. 


Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. 

not entirely satisfactory to him, nor that of older writers." Hence his own attempt everywhere 
at plain, unadorned expression. The criticism of Photius , 100 that Socrates’ style ‘had nothing 
remarkable about it,’ although made in the spirit of censure, is true, and according to Socrates’ 
standard (which is also that of modern times) amounts to a commendation. Socrates, how- 
ever, was not lacking in good humor and satire , 101 as well as in appreciation of short and 
pithy utterances; he often quotes proverbs and epigrammatic sayings, " and knows the 
influence of the anecdote and reminiscence in interesting the reader. 

The value of Socrates’ History cannot be overestimated. It will always remain a source 
of primary importance. Though, as already noted, its ideal as a history is below that set up 
by Thucydides, Tacitus, and others of an earlier age, — below even that of Eusebius, — yet as 
a collection of facts and documents in regard to some of the most important events of the 
church’s life it is invaluable. Its account of the great Arian controversy, its details of the 
Councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, and Ephesus, besides those of the lesser, 
local conventions, its biographical items relative to the lives of the emperors, the bishops, 
and monks — some of whom are of pivotal importance in the movements of the times, its 
sketches of Ulphilas and Hypatia, its record of the manner and time of the conversion of 
the Saracens, the Goths, the Burgundians, the Iberians, and the Persians, as well as of the 
persecution of the Jews, the paschal controversy, not to mention a vast number of other 
details of minor importance, will always be read and used with the deepest interest by lovers 
of ecclesiastical history. 

99 VI. 22; VII. 27. 

100 Biblioth. Cod. 28. 

101 III. 16; IV. 22; VI. 13; VII. 21, 34. 

102 II. 8; III. 21; V. 15; VII. 29, 31. 


History of Socrates' Work. 

IV. History of Socrates’ Work. 

A. Uses made before the First Printed Edition of the Greek Text. 

Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History was used, according to the best authorities, by Sozomen 

i m 

in the composition of his parallel history. It was certainly used by Liberatus, the 
Carthaginian deacon, in his Breviarium caussce Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, and by 
Theodorus Anagnostes (Lector) in his Ecclesiastical History. 104 It was also quoted in the 
second Council of Nicaea, under the name of Rufinus, and also under its author’s name. 105 

Epiphanius, surnamed Scholasticus, translated the history of Socrates, together with 
those of Sozomen and Theodoret, under the auspices of Cassiodorus, about the beginning 
of the sixth century. This translation, under the name of Historiae Ecclesiasticce Tripartitce, 
consists of twelve books, and was printed at Paris, without date, by Regnault in 8vo; after- 
wards also at Bale in 1523, 1528, 1533, 1539, and 1568. It was revised by Beatus Rhenanus, 
and published in Frankfort on the Main in 1588, together with the history of Eusebius, which 
was translated and continued by Rufinus. It is also found in the new edition of Cassiodorus 
printed at Rouen by Jo. Garetius in 1679 and in Venice, 1729. It served as a basis for a French 
translation by TEgidius Gourlinus (Gille Gourlin), published in Paris in 1538 (cited by Cy- 
aneus), and of a German translation by Caspar Hedio at Strasburg, 1545. 

B. Editions. 

There are two independent editions of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, each of which 
has served as a basis for reprints, secondary editions, and translations. These are: 

I. Eusebii Pamphili: Hist. Eccl. LL. X.; ejd. de Vita Constantini LL. V.; Socratis Hist. Eccl. 
LL. VII.; Theodoreti Episc. Cyrensis Hist. Eccl. LL. V.; Collectaneum ex hist. eccl. Theodori 
Lectoris LL. II.; Hermiae Sozomeni Hist. Eccl. LL. IX.; Evagrii Hist. Eccl. LL. VI. Lut. Paris, 
ex off. Rob. Stephani 1544 pridie Cal. Jul. 

a. Upon this edition is based a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus, Bale 1544, 1549, 
1 557, 1 594, and one by J. J. Christophorson, bishop of Chichester, Paris 1571, Cologne 1581, 
Bale 1570; with notes by Grynaeus and by Henricus Petri 1611; incorporated into the Biblio- 
theca Patrum, ed. Cologne 1618 as Vol. V. and ed. Lyons 1677 as Vol. VII. 

b. The Greek text of Stephens and the Latin translation of Christophorson were published 
together in Geneva, 1612. 

103 So Harnack and Jeep. Cf. also Hartranft in the present vol., p. 00. 

104 Theodorus’ works were two: (1) An epitome of the histories written previous to his time, and (2) an ori- 
ginal history continuing the narrative to the days of Justinian I. 

105 Cf. Mansi, Concil. XII. Coll. 1035 and 1042. 


History of Socrates' Work. 

c. An English translation of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History was made by Meredith 
Hanmer, 106 and is contained in his Ancient Ecclesiastical Histories of the first six hundred 
years after Christ, written in the Greek tongue by three learned Historiographers, Eusebius, 
Socrates and Evagrius. London 1577. [This work also contains Dorotheus’ Lives of the 
Prophets, Apostles, and Seventy Disciples reprinted in 1585 and 1650.] 

2. The second independent edition of Socrates is that which has been received as 
standard and served as a basis for all subsequent uses, viz.: 

Historia Ecclesiastica Socratis, Scholastici, Hermice, Sozomeni, &c„ ed. Henricus Valesius. 
Paris 1668. Valesius ostensibly revised the text of Stephens, but as a matter of fact he made 
a new collation of the ms. used by Stephens, and compared this with mss. in the Vatican, 
so that his edition amounts to an entirely new work. He also made a new Latin translation 
and appended numerous notes. This edition was reprinted in Mayence in 1677. Its Latin 
portion was reprinted in Paris also in 1677. The reprint of Mayence was reproduced under 
a new title, as if in Amsterdam in 1675. 

a. Gul. Reading appended additional notes, and together with the Latin translation of 
Valesius, published the work in Cambridge in three vols. 1720. Reading’s edition was reprin- 
ted at Turin in 1746. Valesius’ original edition was again reprinted in Oxford by Parker in 
1844 and Cura Buckley in London, also in 1844. It was revised and published in Oxford in 
3 vols. by R. Hussey in 1853, and again in 1860 and in 1879. Again it was incorporated into 
Migne’s Patrologia Grceca as Vol. LXVII. (Petit Montrouge) in 1859, and finally the Greek 
text alone was revised and published in a single volume by William Bright in Oxford 1878. 

b. The translations based on Valesius’ edition exclusive of those in Latin mentioned 
above are as follows: 

In French by L. Cousin: Histoire de I’Eglise ecrite par Eusebe, Socrate, Sozomene, 
Theodoret, &c. 4 vols. Paris 1675, and 6 vols. Amsterdam 1686. [Containing also Photius’ 
abstract of Philostorgius.] 

In English by Shorting: The History of the Church as written in Greek by Eusebius, 

Socrates, and Evagrius [contains also the four books of the Life of Constantine, Constantine’s 
Oration to the Convention of the Saints, and Eusebius’ speech in praise of Constantine] , 
translated from the edition of Valesius, with a translation also of Valesius’ notes and his 
account of the lives and writings of those historians. Cambridge 1683, 1692, 1709. 

By S. Parker: The Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and 
Theodoret.... abridged from the originals. London 1707, 3rd ed. 1729. 

106 Cf. Woods, Athence Oxonienses, Vol. I. p. 326. 

107 So Cruse. 


History of Socrates' Work. 

i ns 

And Anonymously [E. Walford] The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians of the first six 
centuries of the Christian Era in 6 vols. [Socrates Scholasticus’ History forms Vol. III. of this 
series] . London, Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1843-46. This translation was reprinted in Bohn’s 
Ecclesiastical Library, 4 vols., 1851 and 1888, and by Bagster in 1868. 

108 The volume containing Sozomen in this series bears the name of Walford. The translation of Socrates is 
anonymous, but generally ascribed to Walford also. This cannot be a matter of inference from the appearance 
of the two historians in the same series, as Eusebius, also in the same series, is translated by Cruse. Those who 
attribute the translation to Walford give no reason for doing so. 


Book I 





Book I. 

Chapter I . — Introduction to the Work. 

Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus , 109 writing the History of the Church 110 in ten books, 
closed it with that period of the emperor Constantine, when the persecution which Diocletian 
had begun against the Christians came to an end. Also in writing the life of Constantine, 
this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on 
the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate 
statement of facts. Now, as we propose to write the details of what has taken place in the 
churches since his time to our own day, we begin with the narration of the particulars which 
he has left out, and we shall not be solicitous to display a parade of words, but to lay before 
the reader what we have been able to collect from documents, and what we have heard from 
those who were familiar with the facts as they told them. And since it has an important 
bearing on the matter in hand, it will be proper to enter into a brief account of Constantine’s 
conversion to Christianity, making a beginning with this event. 

109 Eusebius seems to have adopted this name as a token of friendship and respect for Pamphilus, bishop of 
Caesarea. See McGiffert, Prolegomena in Vol. I„ Second Series of Post-Nicene Fathers. 

110 Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History ends with the death of Licinius in 323. His Life of Constantine is in a sense 
a continuation of the History, and yet as it is very well characterized by Socrates, it is a eulogy and therefore its 
style and selection of facts are affected by its purpose, rendering it too inadequate as a continuation of the Eccle- 
siastical History; hence Socrates’ constraint to review some of the events which naturally fall in Eusebius’ period. 


By what Means the Emperor Constantine became a Christian. 

Chapter II —By what Means the Emperor Constantine became a Christian. 

When Diocletian and Maximian, 111 surnamed Herculius, had by mutual consent laid 
aside the imperial dignity, and retired into private life, Maximian, surnamed Galerius, who 
had been a sharer with them in the government, came into Italy and appointed two Caesars, 
Maximin in the eastern division of the empire, and Severus in the Italian. In Britain, however, 
Constantine was proclaimed emperor, instead of his father Constantius, who died in the 
first year of the two hundred and seventy- first Olympiad, on the 25th of July. And at 

Rome Maxentius, the son of Maximian Herculius, was raised by the praetorian soldiers to 
be a tyrant rather than an emperor. In this state of things Herculius, impelled by a desire to 
regain the sovereignty, attempted to destroy his son Maxentius; but this he was prevented 
by the soldiery from effecting, and he soon afterwards died at Tarsus in Cilicia. At the same 
time Severus Caesar being sent to Rome by Galerius Maximian, in order to seize Maxentius, 
was slain, his own soldiers having betrayed him. At length Galerius Maximian, who had 
exercised the chief authority, also died, having previously appointed as his successor, his 
old friend and companion in arms, Licinius, a Dacian by birth. Meanwhile, Maxentius sorely 
oppressed the Roman people, treating them as a tyrant rather than as a king, shamelessly 
violating the wives of the nobles, putting many innocent persons to death, and perpetrating 
other similar atrocities. The emperor Constantine being informed of this, exerted himself 
to free the Romans from the slavery under him (i.e. Maxentius), and began immediately to 
consider by what means he might overthrow the tyrant. Now while his mind was occupied 
with this great subject, he debated as to what divinity’s aid he should invoke in the conduct 
of the war. He began to realize that Diocletian’s party had not profited at all by the pagan 
deities, whom they had sought to propitiate; but that his own father Constantius, who had 
renounced the various religions of the Greeks, had passed through life far more prosperously. 
In this state of uncertainty, as he was marching at the head of his troops, a preternatural 
vision, which transcends all description, appeared to him. In fact, about that part of the day 
when the sun after posing the meridian begins to decline towards the west, he saw a pillar 
of light in the heavens, in the form of a cross, on which were inscribed these words, By This 

111 ‘Socrates is here in error; for Maximianus Herculius, who was otherwise called Maximian the Elder, was, 
by Constantine’s command, slain in Gallia in 310 a.d. But Maximius Caesar, two years after, being conquered 
by Licinius, died at Tarsus.’ (Valesius.) On the confusion of Maximian and Maximin, see Introd. III. 

112 305 or 306 a.d. 

113 Ttavra Tteptettcov, not to be taken literally, inasmuch as there were two other Augusti — Constantine and 
Maxentius; and hence though senior Augustus, he was not sole ruler. On the appointment of the Augusti under 
Diocletian, and meaning of the title, see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xiii. 


By what Means the Emperor Constantine became a Christian. 

Conquer . 114 The appearance of this sign struck the emperor with amazement and scarcely 
believing his own eyes, he asked those around him if they beheld the same spectacle; and as 
they unanimously declared that they did, the emperor’s mind was strengthened by this divine 
and marvelous apparition. On the following night in his slumbers he saw Christ who directed 
him to prepare a standard according to the pattern of that which had been seen; and to use 
it against his enemies as an assured trophy of victory. In obedience to this divine oracle, he 
caused a standard in the form of a cross to be prepared, which is preserved in the palace 
even to the present time: and proceeding in his measures with greater earnestness, he attacked 
the enemy and vanquished him before the gates of Rome, near the Mulvian bridge, Maxen- 
tius himself being drowned in the river. This victory was achieved in the seventh year of the 
conqueror’s reign . 115 After this, while Licinius, who shared the government with him, and 
was his brother-in-law, having married his sister Constantia, was residing in the East, the 
emperor Constantine, in view of the great blessing he had received, offered grateful 
thanksgivings to God as his benefactor; these consisted in his relieving the Christians from 
persecution, recalling those who were in exile, liberating such as were imprisoned, and 
causing the confiscated property of the prescribed to be restored to them; he moreover rebuilt 
the churches, and performed all these things with the greatest ardor. About this time Dio- 
cletian, who had abdicated the imperial authority, died at Salona in Dalmatia . 116 

114 ’Ev toutw vtKa. For an extensive and satisfactory treatment of this famous passage in the life of Constantine, 
see Richardson, Prolegomena to the Life of Const., Vol. I„ Second Series, Post-Nicene Fathers. 

115 312 a.d. 

116 Cf. an account of these events in Sozomen, I. 3. See also on the persecution instituted by Diocletian 
Neander, Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. I. pp. 143-156; Schaff, Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. I. pp. 174-177; Euseb. 
H. E„ Books VIII.-X. Lactantius, de Mortibus persec. c. 7 seq. Diocletian abdicated in 305 a.d. 


While Constantine favors the Christians, Licinius, his Colleague, persecutes... 

Chapter III. — While Constantine favors the Christians, Licinius, his Colleague, persecutes 


Now Constantine, the emperor, having thus embraced Christianity, conducted himself 
as a Christian of his profession, rebuilding the churches, and enriching them with splendid 
offerings: he also either closed or destroyed the temples of the pagans, and exposed the 

images which were in them to popular contempt. But his colleague Licinius, holding his 
pagan tenets, hated Christians; and although from fear of the emperor Constantine he 
avoided exciting open persecution, yet he managed to plot against them covertly, and at 
length proceeded to harass them without disguise. This persecution, however, was local, 
extending only to those districts where Licinius himself was: but as these and other public 
outrages did not long remain concealed from Constantine, finding out that the latter was 
indignant at his conduct, Licinius had recourse to an apology. Having thus propitiated him, 
he entered into a feigned league of friendship, pledging himself by many oaths not to act 
again tyrannically. But no sooner did he pledge himself than he committed perjury; for he 
neither changed his tyrannical mood nor ceased persecuting Christians. Indeed, he even 
prohibited the bishops by law from visiting the uncoverted pagans, lest it should be made 
a pretext for proselyting them to the Christian faith. And the persecution was thus at the 
same time well known and secret. It was conceded in name but manifest in fact; for those 
who were exposed to his persecution suffered most severely both in their persons and 

117 'EAArjvwv: the word is used without the sense of nationality. So also in the New Testament often: Mark 
vii. 26; Gal. ii. 3 and iii. 28, where the Syriac (Peschitto) version renders, more according to sense than according 
to the letter, ‘an Aramaean.’ 


War arises between Constantine and Licinius on Account of the Christian. . . 

Chapter IV . — War arises between Constantine and Licinius on Account of the Christians. 

By this course he drew upon himself the emperor Constantine’s heaviest displeasure; 
and they became enemies, the pretended treaty of friendship between them having been 
violated. Not long afterwards they took up arms against each other as declared enemies. 
And after several engagements both by sea and land, Licinius was at last utterly defeated 
near Chrysopolis in Bithynia, a port of the Chalcedonians, and surrendered himself to 
Constantine. Accordingly he having taken him alive, treated him with the utmost humanity, 
and would by no means put him to death, but ordered him to take up his abode and live in 
tranquillity at Thessalonica. He having, however, remained quiet a short time, managed 
afterwards to collect some barbarian mercenaries and made an effort to repair his late disaster 
by a fresh appeal to arms. The emperor being made acquainted with his proceedings, directed 
that he should be slain, which was carried into effect. Constantine thus became possessed 

i i q 

of the sole dominion, and was accordingly proclaimed sovereign Autocrat, and again 
sought to promote the welfare of Christians. This he did in a variety of ways, and Christianity 
enjoyed unbroken peace by reason of his efforts. But an internal dissension soon succeeded 
this state of repose, the nature and origin of which I shall now endeavor to describe. 

118 After a victory the soldiers greeted their prince with acclamations of ‘Emperor!’ ‘Augustus!’ So also did 
the citizens on his triumphal entry into the city. So it appears Constantine was formally greeted on assuming 
the sole control of affairs. 


The Dispute ofArius with Alexander, his Bishop. 

Chapter V . — The Dispute ofArius with Alexander, his Bishop. 

After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas 
was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace 
above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and govern- 
ment of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his 
clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mys- 
tery — the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, 
whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the 
bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan , 119 from 
love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vig- 
orously responded to what was said by the bishop. ‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he 
that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a 

i ■jri 

time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance 
from nothing.’ 

119 Though Sabellius was the originator of one of the earliest and most plausible attempts at explanation of 
the mystery of the Trinity (for which see life of Sabellius in Smith and W ace. Diet. of Christian Biog., and Hodge, 
System. Theol. Vol. I. p. 452, 459), nothing is known of him, not even why he is called a Libyan here (also by 
other ancient writers, e.g. Philastrius, de Hceres. 26, and Asterius, quoted by Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 27). Some say 
that he was a native and resident of Libya, others that he was an ecclesiastic appointed to some position there; 
nor is it known whether the Libya meant is the Libyan Pentapolis or the Pentapolitan Ptolemais. 

120 UTtooraatv. Through the Arian controversy this word is used in its metaphysical sense of ‘real nature of 
a thing as underlying and supporting its outward form and properties’; hence it is equivalent to the Latin sub- 
stantia, Eng. essence and Greek ouata. Cf. below III. 7. Later it was applied to the ‘special or characteristic nature 
of a thing,’ and so became the very opposite of ouata (the general nature); hence equivalent to person. 


Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop... 

Chapter VI. — Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of 

Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents. 

Having drawn this inference from his novel train of reasoning, he excited many to a 
consideration of the question; and thus from a little spark a large fire was kindled: for the 
evil which began in the Church at Alexandria, ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, and the upper 
Thebes, and at length diffused itself over the rest of the provinces and cities. Many others 
also adopted the opinion of Arius; but Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of it: 
not he of Caesarea, but the one who had before been bishop of the church at Berytus, and 
was then somehow in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When Alexander 
became conscious of these things, both from his own observation and from report, being 
exasperated to the highest degree, he convened a council of many prelates; and excommu- 
nicated Arius and the abettors of his heresy; at the same time he wrote as follows to the 
bishops constituted in the several cities: — 

The Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria. 

To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, 
Alexander sends greeting in the Lord. 

Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are commanded in the holy 
Scriptures to maintain ‘the bond of unity and peace,’ it becomes us to write, and mutually 

acquaint one another with the condition of things among each of us, in order that ‘if one 

1 99 

member suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathize with each other, or rejoice together. 
Know therefore that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless and anti-christian 
men, teaching apostasy such as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of 
Antichrist. I wished indeed to consign this disorder to silence, that if possible the evil might 
be confined to the apostates alone, and not go forth into other districts and contaminate 
the ears of some of the simple. But since Eusebius, now in Nicomedia, thinks that the affairs 
of the Church are under his control because, forsooth, he deserted his charge at Berytus and 
assumed authority over the Church at Nicomedia with impunity, and has put himself at the 
head of these apostates, daring even to send commendatory letters in all directions concerning 
them, if by any means he might inveigle some of the ignorant into this most impious and 
anti-christian heresy, I felt imperatively called on to be silent no longer, knowing what is 
written in the law, but to inform you of all of these things, that ye might understand both 
who the apostates are, and also the contemptible character of their heresy, and pay no atten- 
tion to anything that Eusebius should write to you. For now wishing to renew his former 
malevolence, which seemed to have been buried in oblivion by time, he affects to write in 

121 Eph. iv. 3. 

122 1 Cor. xii. 26. 


Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop... 

their behalf; while the fact itself plainly shows that he does this for the promotion of his own 
purposes. These then are those who have become apostates: Arius, Achillas, Aithales, and 
Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoius, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladis, and Gaius; 
with these also must be reckoned Secundus and Theonas, who once were called bishops. 
The dogmas they have invented and assert, contrary to the Scriptures, are these: That God 
was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the 
Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing 

God (‘the I AM’ — the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; 
wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a 
work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the 
Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erro- 
neously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the 
Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he 
is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: 
hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable 
by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know 
the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own es- 
sence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an 
instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us. 

Some one accordingly asked them whether the Word of God could be changed, as the 
devil has been? and they feared not to say, ‘ Y es, he could; for being begotten, he is susceptible 
of change.’ We then, with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, being assembled together to the 
number of nearly a hundred, have anathematized Arius for his shameless avowal of these 
heresies, together with all such as have countenanced them. Yet the partisans of Eusebius 
have received them; endeavoring to blend falsehood with truth, and that which is impious 
with what is sacred. But they shall not prevail, for the truth must triumph; and ‘light has no 
fellowship with darkness, nor has Christ any concord with Belial .’ 124 Who ever heard such 
blasphemies? or what man of any piety is there now hearing them that is not horror-struck, 
and stops his ears, lest the filth of these expressions should pollute his sense of hearing? 
Who that hears John saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word, does not condemn those 
that say, ‘There was a period when the Word was not’? or who, hearing in the Gospel of ‘the 
only-begotten Son,’ and that ‘all things were made by him,’ will not abhor those that pro- 
nounce the Son to be one of the things made? How can he be one of the things which were 
made by himself? Or how can he be the only-begotten, if he is reckoned among created 

123 ouk ovtcov yeyovev, lit. ‘came into existence from nothing.’ 

124 2 Cor. vi. 14. 

125 John i. 1-3, 18. 


Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop... 

things? And how could he have had his existence from nonentities, since the Father has 

1 O/T 

said, ‘My heart has indited a good matter ’; and ‘I begat thee out of my bosom before the 

197 1 9 R 

dawn’? Or how is he unlike the Father’s essence, who is ‘his perfect image, and ‘the 
brightness of his glory’ and says: ‘He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father’? Again how 
if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, was there a period when he did not exist? for 
that is equivalent to their saying that God was once destitute both of Word and Wisdom. 
How can he be mutable and susceptible of change, who says of himself, ‘I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me; and ‘I and the Father are one; and again by the Prophet, 
‘Behold me because I am, and have not changed’? But if any one may also apply the expression 
to the Father himself, yet would it now be even more fitly said of the Word; because he was 

1 oo 

not changed by having become man, but as the Apostle says, ‘Jesus Christ, the same 
yesterday, to-day, and forever.’ But what could persuade them to say that he was made on 
our account, when Paul has expressly declared 134 that ‘all things are for him, and by him’? 
One need not wonder indeed at their blasphemous assertion that the Son does not perfectly 
know the Father; for having once determined to fight against Christ, they reject even the 
words of the Lord himself, when he says, ‘As the Father knows me, even so know I the 
Father.’ If therefore the Father but partially knows the Son, it is manifest that the Son also 
knows the Father but in part. But if it would be improper to affirm this, and it be admitted 
that the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is evident that as the Father knows his own Word, 
so also does the Word know his own Father, whose Word he is. And we, by stating these 
things, and unfolding the divine Scriptures, have often confuted them: but again as 
chameleons they were changed, striving to apply to themselves that which is written, ‘When 
the ungodly has reached the depths of iniquity, he becomes contemptuous. Many heresies 

have arisen before these, which exceeding all bounds in daring, have lapsed into complete 
infatuation: but these persons, by attempting in all their discourses to subvert the Divinity 
of The Word, as having made a nearer approach to Antichrist, have comparatively lessened 

126 Ps. xliv. 1, according to the LXX. 

127 'Etoacpopov, the morning-star; taken from Ps. cix. 3. Cf. the LXX, quoted from Ps. lxxii. 

128 Col. i. 15. 

129 Heb. i. 3. 

130 Johnxiv. 10. 

131 John x. 30. 

132 Mai. iii. 6. 

133 Heb. xiii. 8. 

134 Heb. ii. 10. 

135 Johnx. 15. 

136 Prov. xviii. 3, according to the LXX. 


Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop... 

the odium of former ones. Wherefore they have been publicly repudiated by the Church, 
and anathematized. We are indeed grieved on account of the perdition of these persons, 
and especially so because, after having been previously instructed in the doctrines of the 
Church, they have now apostatized from them. Nevertheless we are not greatly surprised 

i in 

at this, for Hymenaeus and Philetus fell in like manner; and before them Judas, who had 
been a follower of the Saviour, but afterwards deserted him and became his betrayer. Nor 
were we without forewarning respecting these very persons: for the Lord himself said: ‘Take 
heed that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and 
shall many deceive many’; and ‘the time is at hand; Go ye not therefore after them.’ 
And Paul, having learned these things from the Saviour, wrote, ‘That in the latter times 
some should apostatize from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits, and doctrines of 
devils ,’ 140 who pervert the truth. Seeing then that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has 
himself enjoined this, and has also by the apostle given us intimation respecting such men, 
we having ourselves heard their impiety have in consequence anathematized them, as we 
before said, and declared them to be alienated from the Catholic Church and faith. Moreover 
we have intimated this to your piety, beloved and most honored fellow- ministers, in order 
that ye might neither receive any of them, if they should presume to come to you, nor be 
induced to put confidence in Eusebius, or any other who may write to you about them. For 
it is incumbent on us who are Christians, to turn away from all those who speak or entertain 
a thought against Christ, as from those who are resisting God, and are destroyers of the 
souls of men: neither does it become us even ‘to salute such men ,’ 141 as the blessed John 
has prohibited, ‘lest we should at any time be made partakers of their sins.’ Greet the brethren 
which are with you; those who are with me salute you. 

Upon Alexander’s thus addressing the bishops in every city, the evil only became worse, 
inasmuch as those to whom he made this communication were thereby excited to contention. 
And some indeed fully concurred in and subscribed to the sentiments expressed in this letter, 
while others did the reverse. But Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was beyond all others 
moved to controversy, inasmuch as Alexander in his letter had made a personal and censori- 
ous allusion to him. Now at this juncture Eusebius possessed great influence, because the 
emperor resided at Nicomedia. For in fact Diocletian had a short time previously built a 
palace there. On this account therefore many of the bishops paid their court to Eusebius. 
And he repeatedly wrote both to Alexander, that he might set aside the discussion which 

137 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. 

138 Matt. xxiv. 4. 

139 Lukexxi. 8. 

140 1 Tim. iv. 1; Tit. i. 14. 

141 2 John 10, 11. 


Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop... 

had been excited, and again receive Arius and his adherents into communion; and also to 
the bishops in each city, that they might not concur in the proceedings of Alexander. By 
these means confusion everywhere prevailed: for one saw not only the prelates of the churches 
engaged in disputing, but the people also divided, some siding with one party, and some 
with the other. To so disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that Christianity became 
a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theatres. Those who were at Alexandria sharply 
disputed about the highest points of doctrine, and sent deputations to the bishops of the 
several dioceses; while those who were of the opposite faction created a similar disturbance. 

With the Arians the Melitians mingled themselves, who a little while before had been 
separated from the Church: but who these [Melitians] are must now be stated. 

By Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who in the reign of Diocletian suffered martyrdom, a 
certain Melitius, bishop of one of the cities in Egypt, in consequence of many other charges, 
and more especially because during the persecution he had denied the faith and sacrificed, 
was deposed. This person, being stripped of his dignity, and having nevertheless many fol- 
lowers, became the leader of the heresy of those who are to this day called from him Melitians 
throughout Egypt. And as he had no rational excuse for his separation from the Church, he 
pretended that he had simply been wronged and loaded Peter with calumnious reproaches. 
Now Peter died the death of a martyr during the persecution, and so Melitius transferred 
his abuse first to Achillas, who succeeded Peter in the bishopric, and afterwards again to 
Alexander, the successor of Achillas. In this state of things among them, the discussion in 
relation to Arius arose; and Melitius with his adherents took part with Arius , 142 entering 
into a conspiracy with him against the bishop. But as many as regarded the opinion of Arius 
as untenable, justified Alexander’s decision against him, and thought that those who favored 
his views were justly condemned. Meanwhile Eusebius of Nicomedia and his partisans, with 
such as favored the sentiments of Arius, demanded by letter that the sentence of excommu- 
nication which had been pronounced against him should be rescinded; and that those who 
had been excluded should be readmitted into the Church, as they held no unsound doctrine. 
Thus letters from the opposite parties were sent to the bishop of Alexandria; and Arius made 
a collection of those which were favorable to himself while Alexander did the same with 
those which were adverse. This therefore afforded a plausible opportunity of defense to the 
sects, which are now prevalent, of the Arians, Eunomians, and such as receive their name 

142 Valesius makes the assertion that Socrates is mistaken here, that the Melitians joined themselves to the 
Arians after the council of Nicasa, and were induced by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, to cast slanderous asper- 
sion upon Athanasius, as he himself testifies in his second apology against the Arians. It appears unlikely that 
the Fathers of the Nicene Council would have treated the Melitians as leniently as they did had they sided with 
Arius before the council. 


Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop... 

from Macedonius; for these severally make use of these epistles in vindication of their her- 


The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, . . . 

Chapter VII.— The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, 
sends Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the Bishop and Arius to Reconciliation 
and Unity. 

When the emperor was made acquainted with these disorders, he was very deeply 
grieved; and regarding the matter as a personal misfortune, immediately exerted himself to 
extinguish the conflagration which had been kindled, and sent a letter to Alexander and 
Arius by a trustworthy person named Hosius, who was bishop of Cordova, in Spain. The 
emperor greatly loved this man and held him in the highest estimation. It will not be out of 
place to introduce here a portion of this letter, the whole of which is given in the life of 
Constantine by Eusebius . 143 

Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius. 

I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, 
inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the 
written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius, rashly gave ex- 
pression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when 
suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute having thus been 
excited among you, communion 144 has been denied; and the most holy people being rent 
into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let 
each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of 
your fellow- servant. And what counsel does he offer? It was neither prudent at first to agitate 
such a question, nor to reply to such a question when proposed: for the claim of no law de- 
mands the investigation of such subjects, but the idle useless talk of leisure occasions them. 
And even if they should exist for the sake of exercising our natural faculties, yet we ought 
to confine them to our own consideration, and not incautiously bring them forth in public 
assemblies, nor thoughtlessly confide them to the ears of everybody. Indeed how few are 
capable either of adequately expounding, or even accurately understanding the import of 
matters so vast and profound! 

And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily accomplish this, how 
large a portion of the people would he succeed in convincing? Or who can grapple with the 
subtilties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us therefore 
on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we 
should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the 
audience should make them unable to apprehend clearly what is attempted to be taught: 
and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved 

143 Euseb. Life of Const. II. 64-72. 

144 auvoSoc;; lit., ‘coming together.’ 


The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, . . . 

either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate 
answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause 
of difference has been started by you bearing on any important precept contained in the 
Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of 
God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed . 145 
Moreover, while you thus pertinaciously contend with one another about matters of small 
or scarcely the least importance, it is unsuitable for you to have charge of so many people 
of God, because you are divided in opinion : 146 and not only is it unbecoming, but it is also 
believed to be altogether unlawful. 

In order to remind you of your duty by an example of an inferior kind, I may say: you 
are well aware that even the philosophers themselves are united under one sect. Yet they 
often differ from each other on some parts of their theories: but although they may differ 
on the very highest branches of science, in order to maintain the unity of their body, they 
still agree to coalesce. Now, if this is done amongst them, how much more equitable will it 
be for you, who have been constituted ministers of the Most High God, to become unanimous 
with one another in such a religious profession. But let us examine with closer consideration, 
and deeper attention, what has been already stated. Is it right on account of insignificant 
and vain contentions between you about words, that brethren should be set in opposition 
against brethren; and that the honorable communion should be distracted by unhallowed 
dissension, through our striving with one another respecting things so unimportant, and 
by no means essential? These quarrels are vulgar and rather consistent with puerile 
thoughtlessness, than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We should 
spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great God and Saviour of 
us all has extended to all the common light. Under his providence, allow me, his servant, to 
bring this effort of mine to a successful issue; that by my exhortation, ministry, and earnest 
admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to unity of communion . 147 For since, as I have 
said, there is but one faith among you, and one sentiment respecting religion, and since 
the precept of the law , 149 in all its parts, combines all in one purpose of soul, let not this 
diversity of opinion, which has excited dissension among you, by any means cause discord 
and schism, inasmuch as it does not affect the force of the law as a whole. Now, I say these 

145 Kotvwvtou; auv0r|pa = aup(3oAov trjq moxeux;. Cf. Eus. Life of Const. II. 10. 

146 For the textual variation at this place, see Valesius, note. 

147 ouvoSou Kotvtovtav. 

148 aipeacux; auveau;: lit. ‘understanding of heresy.’ On the various uses of the word atpean;, see Sophocles, 
Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byz. Periods. Here it evidendy means the common creed of the whole Church looked 
at as a sect. 

149 vopoc;, used in analogy to the law of the Old Testament. The law here is the ethical system of Christianity. 


The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, . . . 

things, not as compelling you all to see exactly alike on this very insignificant subject of 
controversy, whatever it may be; since the dignity 150 of the communion may be preserved 
unaffected, and the same fellowship with all be retained, even though there should exist 
among you some dissimilarity of sentiment on unimportant matters. For, of course, we do 
not all desire the same thing in every respect; nor is there one unvarying nature, or standard 
of judgment in us. Therefore, in regard to divine providence, let there be one faith, one 
sentiment, and one covenant of the Godhead : 151 but those minute investigations which ye 
enter into among yourselves with so much nicety, even if ye should not concur in one 
judgment in regard to them, should remain within the sphere of your own reflection, kept 
in the secret recesses of the mind. Let then an ineffable and select bond of general friendship, 
with faith in the truth, reverence for God, and a devout observance of his law, remain un- 
shaken among you. Resume mutual friendship and grace; restore to the whole people their 
accustomed familiar embraces; and do ye yourselves, on the strength of having purified 
your own souls, again recognize one another. For friendship often becomes sweeter after 
the removal of animosity. Thus restore to me tranquil days, and nights free from care; that 
to me also some pleasure in the pure light may be preserved, and a cheerful serenity during 
the rest of my life: otherwise, I must necessarily groan, and be wholly suffused with tears; 
neither will the remaining period of my earthly existence be peacefully sustained. For while 
the people of God (I speak of my fellow-servants) are severed from one another by so un- 
worthy and injurious a contest, how is it possible for me to maintain my usual equanimity? 
But in order that you may have some idea of my excessive grief on account of this unhappy 
difference, listen to what I am about to state. On my recent arrival at the city of Nicomedia, 
it was my intention immediately after to proceed into the East: but while I was hastening 
toward you, and had advanced a considerable distance on my way, intelligence of this affair 
altogether reversed my purpose, lest I should be obliged to see with my own eyes a condition 
of things such as I could scarcely bear the report of. Open to me therefore by your reconcili- 
ation henceforth, the way into the East, which ye have obstructed by your contentions against 
one another: and permit me speedily to behold both you and all the rest of the people re- 
joicing together; and to express my due thanks to the Divine Being, because of the general 
harmony and liberty of all parties, accompanied by the cordial utterance of your praise. 

150 ttptov, ‘honor.’ 

151 toO Kpevrrovoc : for this use of the word, see Eus. Life of Const. II. 24 et al; Greg. Naz. III. 1101 B; Jul. 
398 A; Clem. Horn. V. 5. 

152 Socrates’ lack of theological training can be inferred from his admiration for this rather superficial letter 
of Constantine’s; so also the rudimentary character of Constantine’s views of Gospel truth and his want of ap- 
preciation for the vital nature of the question in the Arian controversy. It may be noted, however, that the 
statesmanship shown in the tone and recommendations of the letter is just as farsighted as the theology of it is 
superficial. Constantine had sought to unite the empire through the church, and now that very church threatened 


The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, . . . 

to disrupt the empire; and this, at the very time, when by his final victory over Licinius and the foundation of 
his new capital, he seemed to have realized the ideal of a reunited empire. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 


Chapter VIII. — Of the Synod which was held atNiccea in Bithynia, and the Creed there 
put forth. 

Such admirable and wise counsel did the emperor’s letter contain. But the evil had be- 
come too strong both for the exhortations of the emperor, and the authority of him who 
was the bearer of his letter: for neither was Alexander nor Arius softened by this appeal; and 
moreover there was incessant strife and tumult among the people. Moreover another local 
source of disquietude had pre-existed there, which served to trouble the churches, — the 
dispute namely in regard to the Passover, which was carried on in the regions of the East 
only . 154 This arose from some desiring to keep the Feast more in accordance with the custom 
of the Jews; while others preferred its mode of celebration by Christians in general 
throughout the world. This difference, however, did not interfere with their communion, 
although their mutual joy was necessarily hindered. When, therefore, the emperor beheld 
the Church agitated on account of both of these causes, he convoked a General Council , 155 
summoning all the bishops by letter to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia. Accordingly the 
bishops assembled out of the various provinces and cities; respecting whom Eusebius 
Pamphilus thus writes, word for word, in his third book of the life of Constantine : 156 

‘Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches which have 
filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were convened. And one sacred edifice, dilated as it were by 
God, contained within it on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, Arabs 
and Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came 
from Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was also present, neither was the 
Scythian absent from this assemblage. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, 
Asia and Phrygia, supplied those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there 
met there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even those who dwelt 
still further away than these, and the most celebrated of the Spaniards himself took his 
seat among the rest. The prelate of the imperial city was absent on account of age; but 

153 Cf. the parallel account in Sozom. I. 17. 

154 In a single sentence this controversy was as to whether the Easter should be observed on a fixed day in 
every year or on the 14th of the lunar month Nisan of the Jews, on whatever day of the week that might happen 
to fall. For a fuller discussion of the controversy, see Smith’s Diet, of the Bible, and the literature there referred 

155 otKOupeviKrjv : hence this is called the first Ecumenical Council. 

156 Euseb. Life of Const. III. 7-9. 

157 Hosius mentioned before in chap. 7. 

158 According to Valesius, who follows Musculus, the prelate here meant was the bishop of Rome. The reason 
alleged is that at the time of the meeting of the council, Constantinople had not yet been made the ‘imperial 
city.’ But considering the general indifference of Socrates to the affairs of the Western Church, and the fact that 


Of the Synod which was held at Niccea in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

some of his presbyters were present and filled his place. Such a crown, composed as a bond 
of peace, the emperor Constantine alone has ever dedicated to Christ his Saviour, as a thank- 
offering worthy of God for victory over his enemies, having appointed this convocation 
among us in imitation of the Apostolic Assembly . 159 For among them it is said were convened 
“devout men of every nation under heaven; Parthians, Medes and Elamites, and those who 
dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, 
Egypt and the part of Libya which is toward Cyrene, strangers from Rome also, both Jews 
and proselytes with Cretans and Arabs.” That congregation, however, was inferior in this 
respect, that all present were not ministers of God: whereas in this assembly the number of 
bishops exceeded three hundred ; 160 while the number of the presbyters, deacons, and aco- 
lyths 161 and others who attended them was almost incalculable. Some of these ministers of 
God were eminent for their wisdom, some for the strictness of their life, and patient endur- 
ance [of persecution] , and others united in themselves all these distinguished characteristics: 
some were venerable from their advanced age, others were conspicuous for their youth and 
vigor of mind, and others had but recently entered on their ministerial career. For all 
these the emperor appointed an abundant supply of daily food to be provided.’ 

Such is Eusebius’ account of those who met on this occasion. The emperor having 
completed the festal solemnization of this triumph over Licinius, came also in person to 

There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity, Paphnutius, bishop of 
Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus: why I have so particular referred to these 
two individuals, I shall state hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who were practiced 
in the art of reasoning, and each eager to advocate the cause of his own party. Eusebius, 

when he wrote, the imperial city was actually Constantinople, it is very probable that it is the bishop of that city 
he means to name here, and not the bishop of Rome. 

159 Acts ii. 5-11. 

160 The exact number is variously given as 250 by Eusebius [Life of Const. III. 8); 270 by Eustathius; 318 by 
Evagrius ( H . E. III. 31); Athanasius ( Ep . to the African bishops); Hilarius ( Contra Constantium ); Jerome 
( Chronicon ), and Rufinus. 

161 Young priests; lit. ‘followers,’ from ocKoAnuBoc;. 

162 tu) pcaw TpOTUp: besides the meaning given to these words here they may be taken (1) as describing the 
temperate and genial character of the men so characterized, on the assumption that peaot; = perpioc as often 
elsewhere, or (2) as applicable to those who occupied the middle ground in the controversy; of these, (2) is not 
admissible, as nothing has been said in the immediate context about the controversy, and as age is the main 
basis of classification in the passage; (1) also is less probable than the rendering given above. 

163 Dialectics. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

bishop of Nicomedia, as was before said, supported the opinion of Arius, together with 
Theognis and Maris; of these the former was bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon in 
Bithynia. These were powerfully opposed by Athanasius, a deacon of the Alexandrian church, 
who was highly esteemed by Alexander his bishop, and on that account was much envied, 
as will be seen hereafter. Now a short time previous to the general assembling of the bishops, 
the disputants engaged in preparatory logical contests before the multitudes; and when 
many were attracted by the interest of their discourse, one of the laity, a confessor 164 , who 
was a man of unsophisticated understanding, reproved these reasoners, telling them that 
Christ and his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor vain subtilties, but simple- 
mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works. As he said this, all present admired 
the speaker and assented to the justice of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after 
hearing his plain statement of the truth, exercised a greater degree of moderation: thus then 
was the disturbance caused by these logical debates suppressed at this time. 

On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one place; the emperor 
arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, 
until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the 
respect and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men. When a silence suitable 
to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from his seat began to address them words 
of exhortation to harmony and unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For 
several of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even presented 
petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing their attention to the matter before 
them, and on account of which they were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; 
merely observing that ‘Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to forgive 
his brother.’ When therefore he had strongly insisted on the maintenance of harmony and 
peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of more closely investigating the questions at issue. 
But it may be well to hear what Eusebius says on this subject, in his third book of the Life 
of Constantine . 165 His words are these: 

‘A variety of topics having been introduced by each party and much controversy being 
excited from the very commencement, the emperor listened to all with patient attention, 
deliberately and impartially considering whatever was advanced. He in part supported the 
statements which were made on either side, and gradually softened the asperity of those 
who contentiously opposed each other, conciliating each by his mildness and affability. And 
as he addressed them in the Greek language, for he was not unacquainted with it, he was at 

164 elq rwv opoAoyr|TWv : the term opoAoyr|Trj<; was applied to those who during the persecutions had refused 
to sacrifice to idols, persisting in his profession of Christianity in spite of suffering. Cf. Clem. Strom. TV. 12; Petr. 
Alex. Epist. Can. 14. 

165 Euseb. Life of Const. III. 13. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

once interesting and persuasive, and wrought conviction on the minds of some, and prevailed 
on others by entreaty, those who spoke well he applauded. And inciting all to unanimity at 
length he succeeded in bringing them into similarity of judgment, and conformity of opinion 
on all the controverted points: so that there was not only unity in the confession of faith, 
but also a general agreement as to the time for the celebration of the feast of Salvation . 166 
Moreover the doctrines which had thus the common consent, were confirmed by the signa- 
ture of each individual.’ 

Such in his own words is the testimony respecting these things which Eusebius has left 
us in writing; and we not unfitly have used it, but treating what he has said as an authority, 
have introduced it here for the fidelity of this history. With this end also in view, that if any 
one should condemn as erroneous the faith professed at this council of Nicaea, we might be 
unaffected by it, and put no confidence in Sabinus the Macedonian, who calls all those 
who were convened there ignoramuses and simpletons. For this Sabinus, who was bishop 
of the Macedonians at Heraclea in Thrace, having made a collection of the decrees published 
by various Synods of bishops, has treated those who composed the Nicene Council in par- 
ticular with contempt and derision; not perceiving that he thereby charges Eusebius himself 
with ignorance, who made a like confession after the closest scrutiny. And in fact some 
things he has willfully passed over, others he has perverted, and on all he has put a construc- 
tion favorable to his own views. Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a trustworthy 
witness, and praises the emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines: but he still brands 
the faith which was declared at Nicaea, as having been set forth by ignorant persons, and 
such as had no intelligence in the matter. And thus he voluntarily contemns the words of a 
man whom he himself pronounces a wise and true witness: for Eusebius declares, that of 
the ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were eminent for the 
word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their life; and that the emperor himself being 
present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and agreement of opinion 
among them. Of Sabinus, however, we shall make further mention as occasion may require. 
But the agreement of faith, assented to with loud acclamation at the great council of Nicaea 
is this: 

166 The Passover, or Easter. 

167 Macedonian = follower of Macedonius, not a native resident of Macedonia. Sabinus was the author of a 
collection of the acts of the Synod used by Socrates quite freely (cf. 1. 9; II. 15, 17 etal). Socrates, however, criticises 
him for prejudice against the orthodox. Sabinus was bishop of the church of the Macedonians in Heraclea, a 
city in Thrace. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invis- 
ible: — and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that 
is of the substance of the Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true God; be- 
gotten, not made, consubstantial 169 with the Father: by whom all things were made, both 
which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salva- 
tion, descended, became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, 
and ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. [We] 
also [believe] in the Holy Spirit. But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes 
those who say “There was a time when he was not,” and “He was not before he was begotten” 
and “He was made from that which did not exist,” and those who assert that he is of other 

I 't/a 

substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is susceptible of change.’ 

This creed was recognized and acquiesced in by three hundred and eighteen [bishops] ; 
and being, as Eusebius says, unanimous is expression and sentiment, they subscribed it. 
Five only would not receive it, objecting to the term homoousios, ‘of the same essence,’ or 
consubstantial: these were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of 
Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. ‘For,’ said they ‘since that 
is consubstantial which is from another either by partition, derivation or germination; by 
germination, as a shoot from the roots; by derivation, as children from their parents; by di- 
vision, as two or three vessels of gold from a mass, and the Son is from the Father by none 
of these modes: therefore they declared themselves unable to assent to this creed.’ Thus 
having scoffed at the word consubstantial, they would not subscribe to the deposition of 
Arius. Upon this the Synod anathematized Arius, and all who adhered to his opinions, 
prohibiting him at the same time from entering into Alexandria. At the same time an edict 
of the emperor sent Arius himself into exile, together with Eusebius and Theognis and their 
followers; Eusebius and Theognis, however, a short time after their banishment, tendered 
a written declaration of their change of sentiment, and concurrence in the faith of the con- 
substantiality of the Son with the Father, as we shall show as we proceed. 

168 This is according to the reading of Valesius, Hussey, and Bright. The reading, ‘our Lord,’ &c., of the 
English translations in Bagster and Bohn’s series is probably a typographical error, though strangely perpetuated 
down to the reprint of 1888. 

169 opoouatov , ‘of the same essence’; the word has become a historic landmark in theological debate, and 
one of the stock words of theological terminology. 

170 This creed is found twelve times in eleven ancient sources, two versions being given in the Acts of the 
Council of Chalcedon. The second version of the Council of Chalcedon contains certain additions from the 
creed of Constantinople; all the rest substantially agree. Cf. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I. p. 24, and Vol. 
II. p. 60, 91; Walch, Antiquitates Symbolicce (1772), p. 87 seq.; Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, p. 40-107, and 
other literature referred to in Schaff s Creeds, &c. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niccea in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

At this time during the session of the Synod, Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, bishop of 
Caesarea in Palestine, who had held aloof for a short time, after mature consideration 
whether he ought to receive this definition of the faith, at length acquiesced in it, and sub- 
scribed it with all the rest: he also sent to the people under his charge a copy of the Creed, 
with an explanation of the word homoousios, that no one might impugn his motives on ac- 
count of his previous hesitation. Now what was written by Eusebius was as follows in his 
own words: 

’You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the transactions of the great 
council convened at Nicaea, in relation to the faith of the Church, inasmuch as rumor gen- 
erally outruns true account of that which has really taken place. But lest from such report 
alone you might form an incorrect estimate of the matter, we have deemed it necessary to 
submit to you, in the first place, an exposition of the faith proposed by us in written form; 
and then a second which has been promulgated, consisting of ours with certain additions 
to its expression. The declaration of faith set forth by us, which when read in the presence 
of our most pious emperor, seemed to meet with universal approbation, was thus expressed: 

I <j I 

“‘According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction 
[in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves 
learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and 
taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we 
believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is this: 

“‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invis- 
ible: — and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of 
life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father, before 
all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarn- 
ate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended 
to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also 
in one Holy Spirit. We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: 
that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even 
as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, ‘Go and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit.’ Concerning these doctrines we steadfastly maintain their truth, and avow our full 
confidence in them; such also have been our sentiments hitherto, and such we shall continue 

171 Karrixnoei ; the word is used of the steps preliminary to baptism, chief among which was instruction in 
the truth. Cf. VII. 17, and Smith’s Diet, of the Bible. 

172 TtpWTOTOKOv raxar|<; Ktiaeux;, taken from Col. i. 15. For the uses of Tipwroc; instead of itporepoc;, see John 
i. 15. 

173 pa0r]reuaare , from Matt, xxviii. 19. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

to hold until death and in an unshaken adherence to this faith, we anathematize every impious 
heresy. In the presence of God Almighty, and of our Lord Jesus Christ we testify, that thus 
we have believed and thought from our heart and soul, since we have possessed a right es- 
timate of ourselves; and that we now think and speak what is perfectly in accordance with 
the truth. We are moreover prepared to prove to you by undeniable evidences, and to con- 
vince you that in time past we have thus believed, and so preached.” 

‘When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no ground of opposition: 
nay, our most pious emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfectly correct, 
and that he himself had entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present 
to give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus agreeing in a unanimous 
profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word “ homoousios ” (consub- 
stantial), an expression which the emperor himself explained, as not indicating corporeal 
affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did not subsist from the Father either 
by division or abscission: for said he, a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot 
possibly be subject to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things can only 
be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by 
our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word homoousious, 
drew up this formula of faith. 

The Creed . 174 

“‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invis- 
ible: — and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that 
is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten 
not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are 
in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, des- 
cended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he as- 
cended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also 
in the Holy Spirit. But those who say ‘There was a time when he was not,’ or ‘He did not 
exist before he was begotten,’ or ‘He was made of nothing’ or assert that ‘He is of other 
substance or essence than the Father,’ or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or sus- 
ceptible of change, the Catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.” 

‘Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not neglect to invest- 
igate the distinct sense of the expressions “of the substance of the Father, and consubstantial 
with the Father.” Whereupon questions were put forth and answers, and the meaning of 
these terms was clearly defined; when it was generally admitted that ousias (of the essence 

174 to (id0rma: lit. ‘lesson.’ 

175 Through. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a 
part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son 
is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to us to assent. We ourselves 
therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do we cavil at the word “homoousios” having 
regard to peace, and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter. On the same grounds 
we admitted also the expression “begotten, not made”: “for made,” said they, “is a term ap- 
plicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has 
no resemblance. Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by him, but is 
of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine Oracles teach was be- 
gotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived 
by any creature.” Thus also the declaration that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father” 
having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, 
or in anyway analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, 
nor by abscission nor by any change of the Father’s substance and power, since the underived 
nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these things. That he is consubstantial with the 
Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but 
is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance 
or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to 
assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the 
ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the 
nature of the Father and the Son. Such is what I have to state to you in reference to the articles 
of faith which have been promulgated; and in which we have all concurred, not without due 
examination, but according to the senses assigned, which were investigated in the presence 
of our most highly favored emperor, and for the reasons mentioned approved. We have 
also considered the anathema pronounced by them after the declaration of faith inoffensive; 
because it prohibits the use of illegitimate terms, from which almost all the distraction 
and commotion of the churches have arisen. Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture 
contains the expressions, “of things which do not exist,” and “there was a time when he was 
not,” and such other phrases as are therein subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable to utter and 
teach them: and moreover this decision received our sanction the rather from the consider- 
ation that we have never heretofore been accustomed to employ these terms. We deemed 
it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint you with the caution which has characterized both 
our examination of and concurrence in these things: and that on justifiable grounds we 
resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions as long as 
these were not acceptable; and received them without dispute, when on mature deliberation 

176 aypatpon;: lit. ‘unwritten,’ but defined by Hesychius as above. 


Of the Synod which was held at Niece a in Bithynia, and the Creed there put... 

as we examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally 
proposed as a sound confession of faith.’ 

Such was the letter addressed by Eusebius Pamphilus to the Christians at Caesarea in 
Palestine. At the same time the Synod itself also, with one accord, wrote the following epistle 
to the church of the Alexandrians, and to believers in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

Chapter IX. — The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation of 

Arius and those who agreed with him. 

To the holy, by the grace of God, and great church of the Alexandrians, and to our be- 
loved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the bishops assembled at Nicaea, 
constituting the great and holy Synod, send greeting in the Lord. 

Since, by the grace of God, a great and holy Synod has been convened at Nicaea, our 
most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of various cities and provinces 
for that purpose, it appeared to us indispensably necessary that a letter should be written 
to you on the part of the sacred Synod; in order that ye may know what subjects were brought 
under consideration and examined, and what was eventually determined on and decreed. 

In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined 
into, in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously 
decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expres- 
sions he has uttered, in affirming that ‘the Son of God sprang from nothing,’ and that ‘there 
was a time when he was not’; saying moreover that ‘the Son of God, because possessed of 
free will, was capable either of vice or virtue; and calling him a creature and a work. All these 
sentiments the holy Synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the 
hearing of such an impious opinion, or, rather, madness, and such blasphemous words. But 
the conclusion of our proceedings against him you must either have been informed of already 
or will soon learn; for we would not seem to trample on a man who has received the chas- 
tisement which his crime deserved. Yet so contagious has his pestilential error proved, as 
to drag into perdition Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais; for they 
have suffered the same condemnation as himself. But when the grace of God delivered us 
from those execrable dogmas, with all their impiety and blasphemy, and from those persons, 
who had dared to cause discord and division among a people previously at peace, there still 
remained the contumacy of Melitius [to be dealt with] and those who had been ordained 
by him; and we now state to you, beloved brethren, what resolution the Synod came to on 
this point. It was decreed, the Synod being moved to great clemency towards Melitius, al- 
though strictly speaking he was wholly undeserving of favor, that he remain in his own city 
but exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he appear 
in no other district or city on this pretense, but simply retain a nominal dignity. That those 
who had received appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate 
ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions: that they should continue 
to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those 
who have been ordained and established in each place and church by our most-honored 
fellow-minister, Alexander, so that they shall have no authority to propose or nominate 
whom they please, or to do anything at all without the concurrence of some bishop of the 
Catholic Church who is one of Alexander’s suffragans. On the other hand, such as by the 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

grace of God and your prayers have been found in no schism, but have continued in the 
Catholic Church blameless, shall have authority to nominate and ordain those who are 

i nn 

worthy of the sacred office, and to act in all things according to ecclesiastical law and 
usage. When it may happen that any of those holding preferments in the church die, then 
let these who have been thus recently admitted be advanced to the dignity of the deceased, 
provided that they should appear worthy, and that the people should elect them, the bishop 
of Alexandria also ratifying their choice. This privilege is conceded to all the others indeed, 
but to Melitius personally we by no means grant the same license, on account of his former 
disorderly conduct, and because of the rashness and levity of his character, in order that no 
authority or jurisdiction should be given him as a man liable again to create similar disturb- 
ances. These are the things which specially affect Egypt, and the most holy church of the 
Alexandrians: and if any other canon or ordinance has been established, our Lord and most- 
honored fellow-minister and brother Alexander being present with us, will on his return to 
you enter into more minute details, inasmuch as he has been a participator in whatever is 
transacted, and has had the principal direction of it. We have also gratifying intelligence to 
communicate to you relative to unity of judgment on the subject of the most holy feast of 
Easter: for this point also has been happily settled through your prayers; so that all the 
brethren in the East who have heretofore kept this festival when the Jews did, will henceforth 
conform to the Romans and to us, and to all who from the earliest time have observed our 
period of celebrating Easter. Rejoicing therefore in these conclusions and in the general 
unanimity and peace, as well as in the extirpation of all heresy, receive with the greater 
honor and more abundant love our fellow-minister and your bishop Alexander, who has 
greatly delighted us by his presence, and even at his advanced age has undergone extraordin- 
ary exertions in order that peace might be re-established among you. Pray on behalf of us 
all, that the things decided as just may be inviolably maintained through Almighty God, 
and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Spirit; to whom be glory for ever. Amen. 

This epistle of the Synod makes it plain that they not only anathematized Arius and his 
adherents, but the very expressions of his tenets; and that having agreed among themselves 
respecting the celebration of Easter, they readmitted the heresiarch Melitius into communion, 
suffering him to retain his episcopal rank, but divesting him of all authority to act as a 
bishop. It is for this reason I suppose that even at the present time the Melitians in Egypt 
are separated from the church, because the Synod deprived Melitius of all power. It should 
be observed moreover that Arius had written a treatise on his own opinion which he entitled 
Thalia; but the character of the book is loose and dissolute, similar in its style and metres 

177 KArjpou: cf. Bingham, Ecd. Antiq. I. 5. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

1 7ft 

to the songs of Sotades. This production also the Synod condemned at the same time. 
Nor was it the Synod alone that took the trouble to write letters to the churches announcing 
the restoration of peace, but the emperor Constantine himself also wrote personally and 
sent the following address to the church of the Alexandrians. 

The Emperor’s Letter. 

Constantine Augustus, to the Catholic church of the Alexandrians. Beloved brethren, 
hail! We have received from Divine Providence the inestimable blessing of being relieved 
from all error, and united in the acknowledgment of one and the same faith. The devil will 
no longer have any power against us, since all that which he had malignantly devised for 
our destruction has been entirely overthrown from the foundations. The splendor of truth 
has dissipated at the command of God those dissensions, schisms, tumults, and so to speak, 
deadly poisons of discord. Wherefore we all worship one true God, and believe that he is. 
But in order that this might be done, by divine admonition I assembled at the city of Nicaea 
most of the bishops; with whom I myself also, who am but one of you, and who rejoice ex- 
ceedingly in being your fellow- servant, undertook the investigation of the truth. Accordingly, 
all points which seemed in consequence of ambiguity to furnish any pretext for dissension, 
have been discussed and accurately examined. And may the Divine Majesty pardon the 
fearful enormity of the blasphemies which some were shamelessly uttering concerning the 
mighty Saviour, our life and hope; declaring and confessing that they believe things contrary 
to the divinely inspired Scriptures. While more than three hundred bishops remarkable for 
their moderation and intellectual keenness, were unanimous in their confirmation of one 
and the same faith, which according to the truth and legitimate construction of the law of 
God can only be the faith; Arius alone beguiled by the subtlety of the devil, was discovered 
to be the sole disseminator of this mischief, first among you, and afterwards with unhallowed 
purposes among others also. Let us therefore embrace that doctrine which the Almighty 
has presented to us: let us return to our beloved brethren from whom an irreverent servant 
of the devil has separated us: let us go with all speed to the common body and our own 
natural members. For this is becoming your penetration, faith and sanctity; that since the 
error has been proved to be due to him who is an enemy to the truth, ye should return to 
the divine favor. For that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred 
bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God; seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in 
the minds of so many dignified persons has effectually enlightened them respecting the 
Divine will. Wherefore let no one vacillate or linger, but let all with alacrity return to the 
undoubted path of duty; that when I shall arrive among you, which will be as soon as possible, 

178 Sotades, a Maronite, characterized as obscene. On the doctrines of the Maronites, cf. Gibbon’s Dedine 
and Fall, Ch. XL VII. sect. 3. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

I may with you return due thanks to God, the inspector of all things, for having revealed 
the pure faith, and restored to you that love for which ye have prayed. May God protect 
you, beloved brethren. 

Thus wrote the emperor to the Christians of Alexandria, assuring them that the expos- 
ition of the faith was neither made rashly nor at random, but that it was dictated with much 
research, and after strict investigation: and not that some things were spoken of, while others 
were suppressed in silence; but that whatever could be fittingly advanced in support of any 
opinion was fully stated. That nothing indeed was precipitately determined, but all was 
previously discussed with minute accuracy; so that every point which seemed to furnish a 
pretext for ambiguity of meaning, or difference of opinion, was thoroughly sifted, and its 
difficulties removed. In short he terms the thought of all those who were assembled there 
the thought of God, and does not doubt that the unanimity of so many eminent bishops 
was effected by the Holy Spirit. Sabinus, however, the chief of the heresy of the Macedonians, 
willfully rejects these authorities, and calls those who were convened there ignorant and il- 
literate persons; nay, he almost accuses Eusebius of Caesarea himself of ignorance: nor does 
he reflect, that even if those who constituted that synod had been laymen, yet as being illu- 
minated by God, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, they were utterly unable to err from the 
truth. Nevertheless, hear farther what the emperor decreed in another circular both 
against Arius and those who held his opinions, sending it in all directions to the bishops 
and people. 

Another Epistle of Constantine. 

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and people. — Since Arius has 
imitated wicked and impious persons, it is just that he should undergo the like ignominy. 
Wherefore as Porphyry, that enemy of piety, for having composed licentious treatises 
against religion, found a suitable recompense, and such as thenceforth branded him with 
infamy, overwhelming him with deserved reproach, his impious writings also having been 
destroyed; so now it seems fit both that Arius and such as hold his sentiments should be 
denominated Porphyrians, that they may take their appellation from those whose conduct 
they have imitated. And in addition to this, if any treatise composed by Arius should be 
discovered, let it be consigned to the flames, in order that not only his depraved doctrine 
may be suppressed, but also that no memorial of him may be by any means left. This 

179 It has always been the common belief of the Eastern Church that the ecumenical councils were inspired 
in the same sense as the writers of the Sacred Scriptures. Socrates in this respect simply reflects the opinion of 
the age and region. 

180 Cf. III. 23, where the author makes further mention of Porphyry and his writings; see also Smith, Diet. 
Greek and Roman Biog. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

therefore I decree, that if any one shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, 
and shall not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be 
death; for immediately after conviction the criminal shall suffer capital punishment. May 
God preserve you! 

Another Epistle . 181 

Constantine Augustus, to the Churches. 

Having experienced from the flourishing condition of public affairs, how great has been 
the grace of divine power, I judged this to be an object above all things claiming my care, 
that one faith, with sincere love, and uniform piety toward Almighty God should be main- 
tained amongst the most blessed assemblies of the Catholic Church. But inasmuch as I 
perceived that this could not be firmly and permanently established, unless all, or at least 
the greatest part of the bishops could be convened in the same place, and every point of our 
most holy religion should be discussed by them in council; therefore as many as possible 
were assembled, and I myself also as one of you was present; for I will not deny what I espe- 
cially rejoice in, that I am your fellow-servant. All points were then minutely investigated, 
until a decision acceptable to Him who is the inspector of all things, was published for the 
promotion of uniformity of judgment and practice; so that nothing might be henceforth 
left for dissension or controversy in matters of faith. There also the question having been 
considered relative to the most holy day of Easter, it was determined by common consent 
that it should be proper that all should celebrate it on one and the same day everywhere. 
For what can be more appropriate, or what more solemn, than that this feast from which 
we have received the hope of immortality, should be invariably kept in one order, and for 
an obvious reason among all? And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy of this most 
sacred feast, that we should keep it following the custom of the Jews; a people who having 
imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage, have thus polluted their souls, and are de- 
servedly blind. Having then cast aside their usage, we are free to see to it that the celebration 
of this observance should occur in future in the more correct order which we have kept 
from the first day of the Passion until the present time. Therefore have nothing in common 
with that most hostile people the Jews. We have received from the Saviour another way; for 
there is set before us both a legitimate and accurate course in our holy religion: unanimously 
pursuing this, let us, most honored brethren, withdraw ourselves from that detestable asso- 
ciation. For it is truly absurd for them to boast that we are incapable of rightly observing 
these things without their instruction. For on what subject will they be competent to form 
a correct judgment, who after that murder of their Ford, having been bereft of their senses, 
are led not by any rational motive, but by an ungovernable impulse, wherever their innate 

181 Euseb. Life of Const. III. 17-19. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

fury may drive them? Thence it is therefore, that even in this particular they do not perceive 
the truth, so that they constantly erring in the utmost degree, instead of making a suitable 
correction, celebrate the Feast of Passover a second time in the same year. Why then 
should we follow the example of those who are acknowledged to be infected with grievous 
error? Surely we should never suffer Easter to be kept twice in one and the same year! But 
even if these considerations were not laid before you, it became your prudence at all times 
to take heed, both by diligence and prayer, that the purity of your soul should in nothing 
have communion, or seem to do so with the customs of men so utterly depraved. Moreover 
this should also be considered, that in a matter so important and of such religious significance, 
the slightest disagreement is most irreverent. For our Saviour left us but one day to be ob- 
served in commemoration of our deliverance, that is the day of his most holy Passion: he 
also wished his Catholic Church to be one; the members of which, however much they may 
be scattered in various places, are notwithstanding cherished by one Spirit, that is by the 
will of God. Let the prudence consistent with your sacred character consider how grievous 
and indecorous it is, that on the same days some should be observing fasts, while others are 
celebrating feasts; and after the days of Easter some should indulge in festivities and enjoy- 
ments, and others submit to appointed fastings. On this account therefore Divine Providence 
directed that an appropriate correction should be effected, and uniformity of practice estab- 
lished, as I suppose you are all aware. 

Since then it was desirable that this should be so amended that we should have nothing 
in common with that nation of parricides, and of those who slew their Lord; and since the 
order is a becoming one which is observed by all the churches of the western, southern, and 
northern parts, and by some also in the eastern; from these considerations for the present 
all thought it to be proper, and I pledged myself that it would be satisfactory to your prudent 
penetration, that what is observed with such general unanimity of sentiment in the city of 
Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spain, France, Britain, Libya, the whole of Greece, 
and the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia, your intelligence also would cheerfully accept; 
reflecting too that not only is there a greater number of churches in the places before men- 
tioned, but also that this in particular is a most sacred obligation, that all should in common 
desire whatever strict reason seems to demand, and what has no communion with the perjury 
of the Jews. But to sum up matters briefly, it was determined by common consent that the 
most holy festival of Easter should be solemnized on one and the same day; for it is not even 
seemly that there should be in such a hallowed solemnity any difference: and it is more 

182 As the J ewish Passover month was a lunar month and began on the fifth day of March and ended on the 

third of April, it happened sometimes that their Passover began before the equinox (the beginning of the solar 
year), so that they celebrated two Passovers during the same solar year. Their own year being lunar, of course 
they never celebrated the Passover twice in a year according to their point of view. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

commendable to adopt that opinion in which there will be no intermixture of strange error, 
or deviation from what is right. These things therefore being thus consistent, do you gladly 
receive this heavenly and truly divine command: for whatever is done in the sacred assemblies 
of the bishops is referable to the Divine will. Wherefore, when ye have indicated the things 
which have been prescribed to all our beloved brethren, it behooves you to publish the above 
written statements and to accept the reasoning which has been adduced, and to establish 
this observance of the most holy day: that when I arrive at the long and earnestly desired 
view of your order, I may be able to celebrate the sacred festival with you on one and the 
same day; and may rejoice with you for all things, in seeing Satanic cruelty frustrated by 
divine power through our efforts, while your faith, peace and concord are everywhere 
flourishing. May God preserve you, beloved brethren. 

Another Epistle to Eusebius. 

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius. 

Since an impious purpose and tyranny have even to the present time persecuted the 
servants of God our Saviour, I have been credibly informed and am fully persuaded, most 
beloved brother, that all our sacred edifices have either by neglect gone to decay, or from 
dread of impending danger have not been adorned with becoming dignity. But now that 
liberty has been restored, and that persecuting dragon Licinius has by the providence of the 
Most High God, and our instrumentality, been removed from the administration of public 
affairs, I imagine that the divine power has been made manifest to all, and at the same time 
that those who either through fear or unbelief fell into any sins, having acknowledged the 
living God, will come to the true and right course of life. Wherefore enjoin the churches 
over which you yourself preside, as well as the other bishops presiding in various places, 
together with the presbyters and deacons whom you know, to be diligent about the sacred 
edifices, either by repairing those which remain standing, or enlarging them, or by erecting 
new ones wherever it may be requisite. And do you yourself ask, and the rest through you, 
the necessary supplies both from the governors of the provinces, and the officers of the 
praetorian prefecture: for directions have been given to them to execute with all diligence 
the orders of your holiness. May God preserve you, beloved brother. 

These instructions, concerning the building of churches were sent by the emperor to 
the bishops in every province: but what he wrote to Eusebius of Palestine respecting the 

1 RA 

preparation of some copies of the Scriptures, we may ascertain from the letters themselves: 

183 Valesius thinks this letter is misplaced; as it alludes to the death of Licinius as a recent event, he thinks it 
must have been written about 315-316 a.d., hence ten years before the Council of Nicaea. Cf. Euseb. Life of Const. 
II. 46. 

184 Euseb. Life of Const. IV. 36. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius of Caesarea. 

In the city which derives its name from us, a very great multitude of persons, through 
the assisting providence of our Saviour God, have united themselves to the most holy Church, 
so that it has received much increase there. It is therefore requisite that more churches 
should be furnished in that place: wherefore do you most cordially enter into the purpose 
which I have conceived. I have thought fit to intimate this to your prudence, that you should 
order to be transcribed on well-prepared parchment, by competent writers accurately ac- 
quainted with their art, fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures, both legibly described, and of 
a portable size, the provision and use of which you know to be needful for the instruction 
of the Church. Letters have also been despatched from our clemency, to the financial agent 
of the diocese that he be careful to provide all things necessary for the preparation of them. 
That these copies may be got ready as quickly as possible, let it be a task for your diligence: 
and you are authorized, on the warrant of this our letter, to use two of the public carriages 
for their conveyance; for thus the copies which are most satisfactorily transcribed, may be 
easily conveyed for our inspection, one of the deacons of your church fulfilling this commis- 
sion; who when he has reached us shall experience our bounty. May God preserve you, be- 
loved brother. 

Another Epistle to Macarius. 

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Macarius of Jerusalem. — Such is the grace 
of our Saviour, that no supply of words seems to be adequate to the expression of its present 
manifestation. For that the monument of his most holy passion, long since hidden under 

the earth, should have lain concealed for a period of so many years, until, through the de- 

1 QO 

struction of the common enemy of all, it should shine forth to his own servants after 
their having regained their freedom, exceeds all admiration. For if all those who throughout 
the whole habitable earth are accounted wise, should be convened in one and the same place, 
desiring to say something worthy of the event, they would fall infinitely short of the least 
part of it; for the apprehension of this wonder as far transcends every nature capable of 
human reasoning, as heavenly things are mightier than human. Hence therefore this is always 

185 SioiKiJaeox; KaSoAiKOV: this office was peculiar to the Eastern Church. The nearest equivalent to it in the 
terminology of the Western Church is that of vicar-general; but as the non- technical expression ‘financial agent’ 
describes the official to the modern reader, it has been adopted in the present translation. Concerning the office, 
cf. Euseb. H. E. VII. 10. It may be also noted that the very common ecclesiastical term diocese (StotKqou; ) ori- 
ginated during the reign of Constantine, as becomes evident from his letters. See Euseb. Life of Const. III. 36. 

186 Euseb. Life of Const. III. 30. 

187 yvtoptapa: the sepulchre near Calvary commonly known as the Saviour’s is meant. 

188 Licinius. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

my especial aim, that as the credibility of the truth daily demonstrates itself by fresh miracles, 
so the souls of us all should become more diligent respecting the holy law, with modesty 
and unanimous eagerness. But I desire that you should be fully aware of what I conceive is 
pretty generally known, that it is now my chief care, that we should adorn with magnificent 
structures that hallowed spot, which by God’s appointment I have disencumbered of a most 
disgraceful addition of an idol, as of some grievous burden; which was consecrated indeed 

from the beginning in the purpose of God, but has been more manifestly sanctified since 
he has brought to light the evidence of the Saviour’s passion. Wherefore it is becoming your 
prudence to make such arrangements, and provision of everything necessary, that not only 
a church 190 should be built in itself superior to any elsewhere, but that the rest of its parts 
also may be such that all the most splendid edifices in every city may be excelled by this. 
With regard to the workmanship and chaste execution of the walls, know that we have en- 
trusted the care of these things to our friend Dracilian, deputy to the most illustrious prefects 
of the praetorium, and to the governor of the province: for my piety has ordered that artificers 
and workmen, and whatever other things they may be informed from your sagacity to be 
necessary for the structure, shall through their care be immediately sent. Respecting the 
columns or the marbles, whatever you may judge to be more precious and useful, do you 
yourself after having inspected the plan take care to write to us; that when we shall understand 
from your letter how many things and of what kind there may be need of, these may be 
conveyed to you from all quarters: for it is but just that the most wonderful place in the 
world, should be adorned in accordance with its dignity. But I wish to know from you, 
whether you consider that the vault of the basilica should be fretted, or constructed on some 
other plan: for if it is to be fretted, it can also be decorated with gold. It remains that your 
holiness should inform the officers before mentioned as soon as possible, how many workmen 
and artificers, and what money for expenses you will want. Be careful at the same time to 
report to me speedily, not only concerning the marbles and columns, but also concerning 
the fretted vault, if indeed you should decide this to be the more beautiful. May God preserve 
you, beloved brother. 

The emperor having also written other letters of a more oratorical character against 
Arius and his adherents, caused them to be everywhere published throughout the cities, 
exposing him to ridicule, and taunting him with irony. Moreover, writing to the 
Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis, he censures the misconduct of Eusebius, not 
only on account of his Arianism, but because also having formerly been well-affected to the 
ruler, he had traitorously conspired against his affairs. He then exhorts them to elect another 

189 A temple of Venus built by Adrian, the emperor, on Mount Calvary. 

190 (3aaiAtKrjv , ‘basilica’; the ancient Roman basilicas were often turned into churches. The term has become 
familiar in ecclesiastical architecture. 


The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation... 

bishop instead of him. But I thought it would be superfluous to insert here the letters respect- 
ing these things, because of their length: those who wish to do so may find them elsewhere 
and give them a perusal. This is sufficient notice of these transactions. 


The Emperor also summons to the Synod Acesius, Bishop of the Novations. 

Chapter X . — The Emperor also summons to the Synod Acesius, Bishop of the Novations. 

The emperor’s diligence induces me to mention another circumstance expressive of his 
mind, and serving to show how much he desired peace. For aiming at ecclesiastical harmony, 
he summoned to the council Acesius also, a bishop of the sect of Novatians. Now, when the 
declaration of faith had been written out and subscribed by the Synod, the emperor asked 
Acesius whether he would also agree to this creed to the settlement of the day on which 
Easter should be observed. He replied, ‘The Synod has determined nothing new, my prince: 
for thus heretofore, even from the beginning, from the times of the apostles, I traditionally 
received the definition of the faith, and the time of the celebration of Easter.’ When, therefore, 
the emperor further asked him, ‘For what reason then do you separate yourself from com- 
munion with the rest of the Church?’ he related what had taken place during the persecution 
under Decius; and referred to the rigidness of that austere canon which declares, that it is 
not right persons who after baptism have committed a sin, which the sacred Scriptures de- 
nominate ‘a sin unto death ’ 191 to be considered worthy of participation in the sacraments : 192 
that they should indeed be exhorted to repentance, but were not to expect remission from 
the priest, but from God, who is able and has authority to forgive sins. When Acesius 
had thus spoken, the emperor said to him, ‘Place a ladder, Acesius, and climb alone into 
heaven .’ 194 Neither Eusebius Pamphilus nor any other has ever mentioned these things: but 
I heard them from a man by no means prone to falsehood, who was very old, and simply 
stated what had taken place in the council in the course of a narrative. From which I conjec- 
ture that those who have passed by this occurrence in silence, were actuated by motives 
which have influenced many other historians: for they frequently suppress important facts, 
either from prejudice against some, or partiality towards others. 

191 Johnv. 16. 

192 0£i'wv [iuarripiwv. 

193 Cf. IV. 28. 

Sozom. I. 22. 



Of the Bishop Paphnutius. 

Chapter XI . — Of the Bishop Paphnutius. 

As we have promised above 195 to make some mention of Paphnutius and Spyridon, it 
is time to speak of them here. Paphnutius then was bishop of one of the cities in Upper 
Thebes: he was a man so favored divinely that extraordinary miracles were done by him. In 
the time of the persecution he had been deprived of one of his eyes. The emperor honored 
this man exceedingly, and often sent for him to the palace, and kissed the part where the 
eye had been torn out. So great devoutness characterized the emperor Constantine. Let this 
single fact respecting Paphnutius suffice: I shall now explain another thing which came to 
pass in consequence of his advice, both for the good of the Church and the honor of the 
clergy. It seemed fit to the bishops to introduce a new law into the Church, that those who 
were in holy orders, I speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, should have no conjugal 
intercourse with the wives whom they had married while still laymen . 1 96 Now when discus- 
sion on this matter was impending, Paphnutius having arisen in the midst of the assembly 
of bishops, earnestly entreated them not to impose so heavy a yoke on the ministers of reli- 
gion: asserting that ‘marriage itself is honorable, and the bed undefiled ; urging before 
God that they ought not to injure the Church by too stringent restrictions. ‘For all men,’ 
said he, ‘cannot bear the practice of rigid continence; neither perhaps would the chastity of 
the wife of each be preserved’: and he termed the intercourse of a man with his lawful wife 
chastity. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their 
sacred calling should abjure matrimony, according to the ancient tradition of the Church: 
but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been 
united. And these sentiments he expressed, although himself without experience of marriage, 
and, to speak plainly, without ever having known a woman: for from a boy he had been 
brought up in a monastery, and was specially renowned above all men for his chastity. 
The whole assembly of the clergy assented to the reasoning of Paphnutius: wherefore they 
silenced all further debate on this point, leaving it to the discretion of those who were hus- 
bands to exercise abstinence if they so wished in reference to their wives. Thus much con- 
cerning Paphnutius. 

195 Above, chap. 8. 

196 Cf. Apost. Cann. 5, 17, 26, 51. In general, voluntary celibacy of the clergy was encouraged in the ancient 

197 Heb. xiii. 4. 

198 daKr]rr|p{& 251': lit. ‘place for the exercise’ of virtue. 


Of Spyridon, Bishop of the Cypriots. 

Chapter XII —Of Spyridon, Bishop of the Cypriots. 

With respect to Spyridon, so great was his sanctity while a shepherd, that he was thought 
worthy of being made a Pastor of men: and having been assigned the bishopric of one of 
the cities in Cyprus named Trimithus, on account of his extreme humility he continued to 
feed his sheep during his incumbency of the bishopric. Many extraordinary things are related 
of him: I shall however record but one or two, lest I should seem to wander from my subject. 
Once about midnight, thieves having clandestinely entered his sheepfold attempted to carry 
off some of the sheep. But God who protected the shepherd preserved his sheep also; for 
the thieves were by an invisible power bound to the folds. At daybreak, when he came to 
the sheep and found the men with their hands tied behind them, he understood what was 
done: and after having prayed he liberated the thieves, earnestly admonishing and exhorting 
them to support themselves by honest labor, and not to take anything unjustly. He then 
gave them a ram, and sent them away, humorously adding, ‘that ye may not appear to have 
watched all night in vain.’ This is one of the miracles in connection with Spyridon. Another 
was of this kind. He had a virgin daughter named Irene, who was a partaker of her father’s 
piety. An acquaintance entrusted to her keeping an ornament of considerable value: she, to 
guard it more securely, hid what had been deposited with her in the ground, and not long 
afterwards died. Subsequently the owner of the property came to claim it; and not finding 
the virgin, he began an excited conversation with the father, at times accusing him of an 
attempt to defraud him, and then again beseeching him to restore the deposit. The old man, 
regarding this person’s loss as his own misfortune, went to the tomb of his daughter, and 
called upon God to show him before its proper season the promised resurrection. Nor was 
he disappointed in his hope: for the virgin again reviving appeared to her father, and having 
pointed out to him the spot where she had hidden the ornament, she once more departed. 
Such characters as these adorned the churches in the time of the emperor Constantine. 
These details I obtained from many inhabitants of Cyprus. I have also found a treatise 
composed in Latin by the presbyter Rufinus, from which I have collected these and some 
other things which will be hereafter adduced . 199 

199 On the use Socrates made of Rufinus, and the question of his knowledge of Latin therein involved, see 
Introd. p. x. 


Of Eutychian the Monk. 

Chapter XIII . — Of Eutychian the Monk. 

I have heard moreover concerning Eutychian, a devout person who flourished about 
the same time; who also belonged to the Novatian church, yet was venerated for the perform- 
ance of similar miracles. I shall unequivocally state my authority for this narrative, nor will 
I attempt to conceal it, even though I give offense to some parties. It was Auxanon, a very 
aged presbyter of the Novatian church; who when quite a youth accompanied Acesius to 
the Synod at Nicaea, and related to me what I have said concerning him. His life extended 
from that period to the reign of Theodosius the Younger; and when I was a mere youth he 
recounted to me the acts of Eutychian, enlarging much on the divine grace which was 
manifested in him: but one circumstance he alluded to, which occurred in the reign of 
Constantine, peculiarly worthy of mention. One of those military attendants, whom the 
emperor calls his domestic [or body] guards having been suspected of treasonable practices, 
sought his safety in flight. The indignant monarch ordered that he should be put to death, 
wherever he might be found: who, having been arrested on the Bithynian Olympus, was 
bound with heavy and painful chains and kept imprisoned near those parts of Olympus 
where Eutychian was leading a solitary life, and healing both the bodies and souls of many. 
The aged Auxanon being then very young was with him, and was being trained by him in 
the discipline of the monastic life. Many persons came to this Eutychian, entreating him to 
procure the release of the prisoner by interceding for him with the emperor. For the fame 
of the miracles done by Eutychian had reached the ears of the emperor. He readily promised 
to go to the sovereign; but as the chains inflicted intolerable suffering, those who interested 
themselves on his behalf declared that death caused by the effect of his chains would anti- 
cipate both the emperor’s vengeance and any intercession that might be made for the pris- 
oner. Accordingly Eutychian sent to the jailers requesting them to relieve the man; but they 
having answered that they should bring themselves into danger by relieving a criminal, he 
went himself to the prison, attended by Auxanon; and as they refused to open the jail, the 
grace which rested on Eutychian was rendered more conspicuous: for the gates of the prison 
opened of their own accord, while the jailers had the keys in their custody. As soon as Euty- 
chian, together with Auxanon, had entered the prison, to the great astonishment of all then 
present the fetters spontaneously fell from the prisoner’s limbs. He then proceeded with 
Auxanon to the city which was anciently called Byzantium but afterwards Constantinople, 
where having been admitted into the imperial palace, he saved the man from death; for the 
emperor, entertaining great veneration for Eutychian, readily granted his request. This indeed 
occurred some time after [the period to which this part of our history refers] . 

The bishops who were convened at the council of Nicaea, after having drawn up and 
enrolled certain other ecclesiastical regulations which they are accustomed to term canons, 
again departed to their respective cities: and as I conceive it will be appreciated by lovers of 
learning, I shall here subjoin the names of such as were present, as far as I have been able 


Of Eutychian the Monk. 

to ascertain them, with the province and city over which they severally presided, and likewise 
the date at which this assembly took place. Hosius, who was I believe bishop of Cordova in 
Spain, as I have before stated. Vito and Vicentius, presbyters of Rome, Alexander, bishop 
of Egypt, Eustathius of Antiochia Magna, Macarius of Jerusalem, and Harpocration of Cy- 
nopolis: the names of the rest are fully reported in The Synodicon 200 of Athanasius, bishop 
of Alexandria. This Synod was convened (as we have discovered from the notation of the 
date prefixed to the record of the Synod) in the consulate of Paulinus and Julian, on the 


20th day of May, and in the 636th year from the reign of Alexander the Macedonian." 
Accordingly the work of the council was accomplished. It should be noted that after the 
council the emperor went into the western parts of the empire. 

200 This work of Athanasius is not now extant. 

201 May 20, 325 a.d. 


Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop ofNiccea, who had been... 

Chapter XIV. — Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop ofNiccea, who had been 
banished for agreeing in Opinion with Arius, having published their Recantation, and 
assented to the Creed, are reinstated in their Sees. 

Eusebius “ and Theognis having sent a penitential confession to the principal bishops, 
were by an imperial edict recalled from exile and restored to their own churches, displacing 
those who had been ordained in their places; Eusebius [displacing] Amphion, and Theognis 
Chrestus. This is a copy of their written retraction: 

‘We having been sometime since condemned by your piety, without a formal trial, ought 
to bear in silence the decisions of your sacred adjudication. But since it is unreasonable that 
we by silence should countenance caluminators against ourselves, we on this account declare 
that we entirely concur with you in the faith; and also that, after having closely considered 
the import of the term consubstantial, we have been wholly studious of peace, having never 
followed the heresy. After suggesting whatever entered our thought for the security of the 
churches, and fully assuring those under our influence, we subscribed the declaration of 
faith; we did not subscribe the anathematizing; not as objecting to the creed, but as disbe- 
lieving the party accused to be such as was represented, having been satisfied on this point, 
both from his own letters to us, and from personal conversations. But if your holy council 
was convinced, we not opposing but concurring in your decisions, by this statement give 
them our full assent and confirmation: and this we do not as wearied with our exile, but to 
shake off the suspicion of heresy. If therefore ye should now think fit to restore us to your 
presence, ye will have us on all points conformable, and acquiescent in your decrees: especially 
since it has seemed good to your piety to deal tenderly with and recall even him who was 
primarily accused. It would be absurd for us to be silent, and thus give presumptive evidence 
against ourselves, when the one who seemed responsible has been permitted to clear himself 
from the charges brought against him. Vouchsafe then, as is consistent with that Christ- 
loving piety of yours, to remind our most religious emperor, to present our petitions, and 
to determine speedily concerning us in a way becoming yourselves.’ 

Such was the language of the recantation of Eusebius and Theognis; from which I infer 
that they had subscribed the articles of faith which had been set forth, but would not become 
parties to the condemnation of Arius. It appears also that Arius was recalled before them; 
but, although this maybe true, yet he had been forbidden to enter Alexandria. This is evident 
from the fact that he afterwards devised a way of return for himself, both into the church 

202 This is not in its place according to chronological order, inasmuch as it occurred in 328 a.d. It appears 
also from the accounts of the other historians of this period that Socrates does not give the correct reason for 
the banishment of Eusebius and Theognis. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. I. 20; also Sozom. I. 21. 


Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop ofNiccea, who had been... 

and into Alexandria, by having made a fictitious repentance, as we shall show in its proper 


After the Synod, on the Death of Alexander, Athanasius is constituted Bishop... 

Chapter XV. — After the Synod, on the Death of Alexander, Athanasius is constituted Bishop 

of Alexandria. 

A little after this, Alexander bishop of Alexandria having died, Athanasius was set 
over that church. Rufinus relates, that this [Athanasius] when quite a boy, played with others 
of his own age at a sacred game: this was an imitation of the priesthood and the order of 
consecrated persons. In this game therefore Athanasius was allotted the episcopal chair, 
and each of the other lads personated either a presbyter or a deacon. The children engaged 
in this sport on the day in which the memory of the martyr and bishop Peter was celebrated. 
Now at that time Alexander bishop of Alexandria happening to pass by, observed the play 
in which they were engaged, and having sent for the children, enquired from them the part 
each had been assigned in the game, conceiving that something might be portended by that 
which had been done. He then gave directions that the children should be taken to the 
church, and instructed in learning, but especially Athanasius; and having afterwards ordained 
him deacon on his becoming of adult age, he brought him to Nicaea to assist him in the 
disputations there when the Synod was convened. This account of Athanasius Rufinus has 
given in his own writings; nor is it improbable that it took place, for many transactions of 
this kind have often occurred. Concerning this matter it will suffice to have said the above . 204 

203 Socrates and Sozomen are both mistaken in putting the death of Alexander and ordination of Athanasius 
after the return of Eusebius and Theognis from exile. According to Theodoret ( H . E. I. 26), Alexander died a 
few months after the Council of Nicaea, hence in 325 a.d., and Athanasius succeeded him at the end of the same 
year, or at the beginning of the next. 

204 See, for additional features of the story not reproduced by Socrates, Rufinus, H. E. I. 14. 


The Emperor Constantine having enlarged the Ancient Byzantium, calls it... 

Chapter XVI. — The Emperor Constantine having enlarged the Ancient Byzantium, calls it 


After the Synod the emperor spent some time in recreation, and after the public celeb- 
ration of his twentieth anniversary of his accession, he immediately devoted himself to 
the reparation of the churches. This he carried into effect in other cities as well as in the city 
named after him, which being previously called Byzantium, he enlarged, surrounded with 
massive walls, and adorned with various edifices; and having rendered it equal to imper- 
ial Rome, he named it Constantinople, establishing by law that it should be designated New 


Rome. This law was engraven on a pillar of stone erected in public view in the Strategium," 
near the emperor’s equestrian statue." He built also in the same city two churches, one of 
which he named Irene, and the other The Apostles . 209 Nor did he only improve the affairs 
of the Christians, as I have said, but he also destroyed the superstition of the heathens; for 
he brought forth their images into public view to ornament the city of Constantinople, and 
set up the Delphic tripods publicly in the Hippodrome. It may indeed seem now superfluous 
to mention these things, since they are seen before they are heard of. But at that time the 
Christian cause received its greatest augmentation; for Divine Providence preserved very 
many other things during the times of the emperor Constantine. Eusebius Pamphilus 
has in magnificent terms recorded the praises of the emperor; and I considered it would 
not be ill-timed to advert thus to them as concisely as possible. 

205 The Vicennalia. 

206 These walls were superseded by the great walls built under Theodosius the Younger; see VII. 31. 

207 ‘Mansion house,’ the building in which the two chief magistrates had their headquarters. 

208 The city was formally dedicated as the capital of the empire in 330 a.d. 

209 Cf. II. 16, and I. 40. 

210 The text seems somewhat doubtful here. Valesius conjectures "a t£ aXXa JtAeTara Kat rouro paAtara, 
idiomatically, ‘this among many other things’; but the mss. read more obscurely, Kat aXXa ttAeTara. 

211 Euseb. Life of Const. III. 33; cf. also 52-55. 


The Emperor's Mother Helena having come to Jerusalem, searches for and finds... 

Chapter XVII. — The Emperor’s Mother Helena having come to Jerusalem, searches for and 
finds the Cross of Christ, and builds a Church. 

Helena, the emperor’s mother (from whose name having made Drepanum, once a village, 
a city, the emperor called it Helenopolis), being divinely directed by dreams went to Jerus- 


alem. Finding that which was once Jerusalem, desolate ‘as a Preserve for autumnal fruits, 
according to the prophet, she sought carefully the sepulchre of Christ, from which he arose 
after his burial; and after much difficulty, by God’s help she discovered it. What the cause 
of the difficulty was I will explain in a few words. Those who embraced the Christian faith, 
after the period of his passion, greatly venerated this tomb; but those who hated Christianity, 
having covered the spot with a mound of earth, erected on it a temple to Venus, and set up 
her image there, not caring for the memory of the place. This succeeded for a long time; 

and it became known to the emperor’s mother. Accordingly she having caused the statue 214 
to be thrown down, the earth to be removed, and the ground entirely cleared, found three 
crosses in the sepulchre: one of these was that blessed cross on which Christ had hung, the 
other two were those on which the two thieves that were crucified with him had died. With 
these was also found the tablet of Pilate, on which he had inscribed in various characters, 
that the Christ who was crucified was king of the Jews. Since, however, it was doubtful which 
was the cross they were in search of, the emperor’s mother was not a little distressed; but 
from this trouble the bishop of Jerusalem, Macarius, shortly relieved her. And he solved the 
doubt by faith, for he sought a sign from God and obtained it. The sign was this: a certain 
woman of the neighborhood, who had been long afflicted with disease, was now just at the 
point of death; the bishop therefore arranged it so that each of the crosses should be brought 
to the dying woman, believing that she would be healed on touching the precious cross. Nor 
was he disappointed in his expectation: for the two crosses having been applied which were 
not the Lord’s, the woman still continued in a dying state; but when the third, which was 
the true cross, touched her, she was immediately healed, and recovered her former strength. 
In this manner then was the genuine cross discovered. The emperor’s mother erected over 
the place of the sepulchre a magnificent church, and named it New Jerusalem, having 
built it facing that old and deserted city. There she left a portion of the cross, enclosed in a 
silver case, as a memorial to those who might wish to see it: the other part she sent to the 

212 Isa. i. 8. OTtwpocpuMKiov , ‘a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,’ according to the English versions (both 
authorized and revised), which follows the Hebrew; in the LXX the words ev aiKuripatw are added. 

213 See the Ep. of Constantine to Macarius, in chap. 9 above. 

214 Joavov, as distinguished from ayoApa, or dvSptat;, used with less reverence; the word is derived from 
Jeo, ‘to polish.’ 

215 aavft, ‘board.’ 

216 oIkov euKtrjpiov, ‘house of prayer.’ 


The Emperor's Mother Helena having come to Jerusalem, searches for and finds... 

emperor, who being persuaded that the city would be perfectly secure where that relic should 
be preserved, privately enclosed it in his own statue, which stands on a large column of 
porphyry in the forum called Constantine’s at Constantinople. I have written this from report 
indeed; but almost all the inhabitants of Constantinople affirm that it is true. Moreover the 
nails with which Christ’s hands were fastened to the cross (for his mother having found 
these also in the sepulchre had sent them) Constantine took and had made into bridle-bits 
and a helmet, which he used in his military expeditions. The emperor supplied all materials 
for the construction of the churches, and wrote to Macarius the bishop to expedite these 
edifices. When the emperor’s mother had completed the New Jerusalem, she reared another 
church not at all inferior, over the cave at Bethlehem where Christ was born according to 
the flesh: nor did she stop here, but built a third on the mount of his Ascension. So devoutly 
was she affected in these matters, that she would pray in the company of women; and inviting 
the virgins enrolled in the register of the churches to a repast, serving them herself, she 
brought the dishes to table. She was also very munificent to the churches and to the poor; 
and having lived a life of piety, she died when about eighty years old. Her remains were 
conveyed to New Rome, the capital, and deposited in the imperial sepulchres. 

217 Kavovt: a word of many meanings; see Sophocles’ Lex. and a dissertation on the word in Westcott On 
the Cation Appendix A, p. 499. 


The Emperor Constantine abolishes Paganism and erects many Churches in Different... 

Chapter XVIII. — The Emperor Constantine abolishes Paganism and erects many Churches 

in Different Places. 

After this the emperor became increasingly attentive to the interests of the Christians, 
and abandoned the heathen superstitions. He abolished the combats of the gladiators, and 
set up his own statues in the temples. And as the heathens affirmed that it was Serapis who 
brought up the Nile for the purpose of irrigating Egypt, because a cubit was usually carried 
into his temple, he directed Alexander to transfer the cubit to the church. And although 
they predicted that the Nile would not overflow because of the displeasure of Serapis, nev- 
ertheless there was an inundation in the following year and afterwards, taking place regularly: 
thus it was proved by fact that the rising of the Nile was not in consequence of their super- 
stition, but by reason of the decrees of Providence. About the same time those barbarians 
the Sarmatians and Goths made incursions on the Roman territory; yet the emperor’s 
earnestness respecting the churches was by no means abated, but he made suitable provision 
for both these matters. Placing his confidence in the Christian banner, he completely 
vanquished his enemies, so as even to cast off the tribute of gold which preceding emperors 
were accustomed to pay the barbarians: while they themselves, being terror-struck at the 
unexpectedness of their defeat, then for the first time embraced the Christian religion, by 
means of which Constantine had been protected. Again he built other churches, one of 
which was erected near the Oak of Mamre, under which the Sacred Oracles declare that 
Abraham entertained angels. For the emperor having been informed that altars had been 
reared under that oak, and that pagan sacrifices were offered upon them, censured by letter 
Eusebius bishop of Caesarea, and ordered that the altars should be demolished, and a house 
of prayer erected beside the oak. He also directed that another church should be constructed 
in Heliopolis in Phoenicia, for this reason. Who originally legislated for the inhabitants of 
Heliopolis I am unable to state, but his character and morals may be judged of from the 
[practice of that] city; for the laws of the country ordered the women among them to be 
common, and therefore the children born there were of doubtful descent, so that there was 
no distinction of fathers and their offspring. Their virgins also were presented for prostitution 
to the strangers who resorted thither. The emperor hastened to correct this evil which had 
long prevailed among them. And passing a solemn law of chastity, he removed the shameful 
evil and provided for the mutual recognition of families. And having built churches there, 
he took care that a bishop and sacred clergy should be ordained. Thus he reformed the 
corrupt manners of the people of Heliopolis. He likewise demolished the temple of Venus 
at Aphaca on Mount Libanus, and abolished the infamous deeds which were there celebrated. 
Why need I describe his expulsion of the Pythonic demon from Cilicia, by commanding 
the mansion in which he was lurking to be razed from its foundations? So great indeed was 

218 rpoTtai& 251': see above, chap. 2. 


The Emperor Constantine abolishes Paganism and erects many Churches in Different... 

the emperor’s devotion to Christianity, that when he was about to enter on a war with Persia, 
he prepared a tabernacle formed of embroidered linen on the model of a church, just as 
Moses had done in the wilderness; and this so constructed as to be adapted to conveyance 

from place to place, in order that he might have a house of prayer even in the most desert 
regions. But the war was not at that time carried on, being prevented through dread of the 
emperor. It would, I conceive, be out of place here to describe the emperor’s diligence in 
rebuilding cities and converting many villages into cities; as for example Drepanum, to 
which he gave his mother’s name, and Constantia in Palestine, so called from his sister. For 
my task is not to enumerate of the emperor’s actions, but simply such as are connected with 
Christianity, and especially those which relate to the churches. Wherefore I leave to others 
more competent to detail such matters, the emperor’s glorious achievements, inasmuch as 
they belong to a different subject, and require a distinct treatise. But I myself should have 
been silent, if the Church had remained undisturbed by divisions: for where the subject does 
not supply matter for relation, there is no necessity for a narrator. Since however subtle and 
vain disputation has confused and at the same time scattered the apostolic faith of Christian- 
ity, I thought it desirable to record these things, in order that the transactions of the churches 
might not be lost in obscurity. For accurate information on these points procures celebrity 
among the many, and at the same time renders him who is acquainted with them more secure 
from error, and instructs him not to be carried away by any empty sound of sophistical ar- 
gumentation which he may chance to hear. 

219 Ex. xxxv. -xl. 


In what Manner the Nations in the Interior of India were Christianized in... 


Chapter XIX. — In what Manner the Nations in the Interior of India were Christianized 

in the Times of Constantine. 

We must now mention in what manner Christianity was spread in this emperor’s reign: 
for it was in his time that the nations both of the Indians in the interior, and of the Iberians 
first embraced the Christian faith. But I shall briefly explain why I have used the appended 
expression in the interior. When the apostles went forth by lot among the nations, Thomas 
received the apostleship of the Parthians; Matthew was allotted Ethiopia; and Bartholomew 
the part of India contiguous to that country: but the interior India, in which many barbarous 
nations using different languages lived, was not enlightened by Christian doctrine before 
the times of Constantine. I now come to speak of the cause which led them to become con- 
verts to Christianity. A certain philosopher, Meropius, a Tyrian by race, determined to ac- 
quaint himself with the country of the Indians, being stimulated to this by the example of 
the philosopher Metrodorus, who had previously traveled through the region of India. 
Having taken with him therefore two youths to whom he was related, who were by no means 
ignorant of the Greek language, Meropius reached the country by ship; and when he had 
inspected whatever he wished, he touched at a certain place which had a safe harbor, for 
the purpose of procuring some necessaries. It so happened that a little before that time the 
treaty between the Romans and Indians had been violated. The Indians, therefore, having 
seized the philosopher and those who sailed with him, killed them all except his two 
youthful kinsmen; but sparing them from compassion for their tender age, they sent them 
as a gift to the king of the Indians. He being pleased with the personal appearance of the 
youths, constituted one of them, whose name was Edesius, cup-bearer at his table; the other, 
named Frumentius, he entrusted with the care of the royal records. The king dying soon 
after, left them free, the government devolving on his wife and infant son. Now the queen 
seeing her son thus left in his minority, begged the young men to undertake the charge of 
him, until he should become of adult age. Accordingly, the youths accepted the task, and 
entered on the administration of the kingdom. Thus Frumentius controlled all things and 
made it a task to enquire whether among the Roman merchants trafficking with that country, 

220 ‘In this chapter Socrates has translated Ruflnus ( H . E. I. 9) almost word for word; and calls those tottoin; 
IStcRovTOu; , which Rufinus has termed conventicula. Now conventicula are properly private places wherein 
collects or short prayers are made; and from these places churches are distinguished, which belong to the right 
of the public, and are not in the power of any private person. It is to be observed that there are reasons for 
thinking that this conversion of the Indians by Frumentius happened in the reign of Constantius and not of 
Constantine’ (Valesius). See also Euseb. H. E. V. 10, attributing an earlier work to the apostles Matthew and 
Bartholomew; and Cave, Lives of the Apostles. The Indians mentioned in this chapter are no other than the 
Abyssinians. The name India is used as an equivalent of Ethiopia. The Christianization of Ethiopia is attributed 
by the Ethiopians in their own records to Fremonatos and Sydracos. See Ludolf Hist. Eth. III. 2. 


In what Manner the Nations in the Interior of India were Christianized in... 

there were any Christians to be found: and having discovered some, he informed them who 
he was, and exhorted them to select and occupy some appropriate places for the celebration 
of Christian worship. In the course of a little while he built a house of prayer; and having 
instructed some of the Indians in the principles of Christianity, they fitted them for particip- 
ation in the worship. On the young king’s reaching maturity, Frumentius and his associates 
resigned to him the administration of public affairs, in the management of which they had 
honorably acquitted themselves, and besought permission to return to their own country. 
Both the king and his mother entreated them to remain; but being desirous of revisiting 
their native place, they could not be prevailed on, and consequently departed. Edesius for 
his part hastened to Tyre to see his parents and kindred; but Frumentius arriving at Alexan- 
dria, reported the affair to Athanasius the bishop, who had but recently been invested with 
that dignity; and acquainting him both with the particulars of his wanderings and the hopes 
Indians had of receiving Christianity. He also begged him to send a bishop and clergy 
there, and by no means to neglect those who might thus be brought to salvation. Athanasius 
having considered how this could be most profitably effected, requested Frumentius himself 
to accept the bishopric, declaring that he could appoint no one more suitable than he was. 
Accordingly this was done; Frumentius invested with episcopal authority, returned to India 
and became there a preacher of the Gospel, and built several churches, being aided also by 
divine grace, he performed various miracles, healing with the souls also the bodily diseases 
of many. Rufinus assures us that he heard these facts from Edesius, who was afterwards or- 


dained to the priesthood at Tyre. 

221 Christianity here must mean Christian instruction. 

222 euKtripta: see note 5, chap. 17 above. 


In what Manner the Iberians were converted to Christianity. 

Chapter XX. — In what Manner the Iberians were converted to Christianity. 

It is now proper to relate how the Iberians about the same time became proselytes 
to the faith. A certain woman leading a devout and chaste life, was, in the providential or- 
dering of God, taken captive by the Iberians. Now these Iberians dwell near the Euxine Sea, 


and are a colony of the Iberians of Spain. Accordingly the woman in her captivity exercised 
herself among the barbarians in the practice of virtue: for she not only maintained the most 
rigid continence, but spent much time in fastings and prayers. The barbarians observing 
this were astonished at the strangeness of her conduct. It happened then that the king’s son, 
then a mere babe, was attacked with disease; the queen, according to the custom of the 
country, sent the child to other women to be cured, in the hope that their experience would 
supply a remedy. After the infant had been carried around by its nurse without obtaining 
relief from any of the women, he was at length brought to this captive. She had no knowledge 
of the medical art, and applied no material remedy; but taking the child and laying it on her 
bed which was made of horsecloth, in the presence of other females, she simply said, ‘Christ, 
who healed many, will heal this child also’; then having prayed in addition to this expression 
of faith, and called upon God, the boy was immediately restored, and continued well from 
that period. The report of this miracle spread itself far and wide among the barbarian women, 
and soon reached the queen, so that the captive became very celebrated. Not long afterwards 
the queen herself having fallen sick sent for the captive woman. Inasmuch as she being a 
person of modest and retiring manners excused herself from going, the queen was conveyed 
to her. The captive did the same to her as she had done to her son before; and immediately 
the disease was removed. And the queen thanked the stranger; but she replied, ‘this work 
is not mine, but Christ’s, who is the Son of God that made the world’; she therefore exhorted 
her to call upon him, and acknowledge the true God. Amazed at his wife’s sudden restoration 
to health, the king of the Iberians wished to requite with gifts her whom he had understood 
to be the means of effecting these cures; she however said that she needed not riches, inas- 
much as she possessed as riches the consolations of religion; but that she would regard as 
the greatest present he could offer her, his recognition of the God whom she worshiped and 
declared. With this she sent back the gifts. This answer the king treasured up in his mind, 
and going forth to the chase the next day, the following circumstance occurred: a mist and 
thick darkness covered the mountain tops and forests where he was hunting, so that their 

223 These Iberians dwelt on the east shore of the Black Sea in the present region of Georgia. What their relation 
to the Spanish Iberians was, or why both the peoples had the same name it is not possible to know at present. 
It was probably not the one suggested by Socrates. For a similar identity of name in peoples living widely apart, 
compare the Gauls of Europe and the Galatse of Asia. 

224 ecprAoaocpet : the ethical sense here attached to the word became very common after the time of the Stoics 
and their attempt to make ethics the basis and starting-point of philosophy. 


In what Manner the Iberians were converted to Christianity. 

sport was embarrassed, and their path became inextricable. In this perplexity the prince 
earnestly invoked the gods whom he worshiped; and as it availed nothing, he at last determ- 
ined to implore the assistance of the captive’s God; when scarcely had he begun to pray, ere 
the darkness arising from the mist was completely dissipated. Wondering at that which was 
done, he returned to his palace rejoicing, and related to his wife what had happened; he also 
immediately sent for the captive stranger, and begged her to inform him who that God was 
whom she adored. The woman on her arrival caused the king of the Iberians to become a 
preacher of Christ: for having believed in Christ through this devoted woman, he convened 
all the Iberians who were under his authority; and when he had declared to them what had 
taken place in reference to the cure of his wife and child not only, but also the circumstances 
connected with the chase, he exhorted them to worship the God of the captive. Thus, 
therefore, both the king and the queen were made preachers of Christ, the one addressing 
their male, and the other their female subjects. Moreover, the king having ascertained from 
his prisoner the plan on which churches were constructed among the Romans, ordered a 
church to be built, and immediately provided all things necessary for its erection; and the 
edifice was accordingly commenced. But when they came to set up the pillars, Divine 
Providence interposed for the confirmation of the inhabitants in the faith; for one of the 
columns remained immovable, and no means were found capable of moving it; but their 
ropes broke and their machinery fell to pieces; at length the workmen gave up all further 
effort and departed. Then was proved the reality of the captive’s faith in the following 
manner: going to the place at night without the knowledge of any one, she spent the whole 
time in prayer; and by the power of God the pillar was raised, and stood erect in the air 
above its base, yet so as not to touch it. At daybreak the king, who was an intelligent person, 
came himself to inspect the work, and seeing the pillar suspended in this position without 
support, both he and his attendants were amazed. Shortly after, in fact before their very 
eyes, the pillar descended on its own pedestal, and there remained fixed. Upon this the 
people shouted, attesting the truth of the king’s faith, and hymning the praise of the God 
of the captive. They believed thenceforth, and with eagerness raised the rest of the columns, 
and the whole building was soon completed. An embassy was afterwards sent to the Emperor 
Constantine, requesting that henceforth they might be in alliance with the Romans, and 
receive from them a bishop and consecrated clergy, since they sincerely believed in Christ. 


Rufinus says that he learned these facts from Bacurius, who was formerly one of the petty 

princes " of the Iberians, but subsequently went over to the Romans, and was made a 
captain of the military force in Palestine; being at length entrusted with the supreme corn- 

225 Rufinus, H. E. I. 10, gives their story and adds that Bacurius was a faithful and religious person and 
rendered service to Theodosius in his war with Eugenius. 

226 (3aaiAtaKO<; : lit. ‘little king.’ 


In what Manner the Iberians were converted to Christianity. 

mand in the war against the tyrant Maximus, he assisted the Emperor Theodosius. In this 
way then, during the days of Constantine, were the Iberians also converted to Christianity. 


Of Anthony the Monk. 

Chapter XXL — Of Anthony the Monk. 

What sort of a man the monk Anthony was, who lived in the same age, in the Egyptian 
desert, and how he openly contended with devils, clearly detecting their devices and wily 
modes of warfare, and how he performed many miracles, it would be superfluous for us to 
say; for Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, has anticipated us, having devoted an entire book 
to his biography. Of such good men there was a large number at one time during the 
years of the Emperor Constantine. 

227 Athanasius’ Life of Anthony is included in the editions of his works, such as the Benedictine (1698), that 

of Padua (1777). On Anthony, see also Soz. I. 3; II. 31, 34. 


Manes, the Founder of the Manichcean Heresy, and on his Origin. 

Chapter XXII.— Manes, the Founder of the Manichcean Heresy, and on his Origin. 

But amidst the good wheat, tares are accustomed to spring up; for envy loves to plot 
insidiously against the good. Hence it was that a little while before the time of Constantine, 
a species of heathenish Christianity made its appearance together with that which was real; 
just as false prophets sprang up among the true, and false apostles among the true apostles. 
For at that time a dogma of Empedocles, the heathen philosopher, by means of Manichaeus, 
assumed the form of Christian doctrine. Eusebius Pamphilus has indeed mentioned this 
person in the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History, but has not entered into minute 
details concerning him. Wherefore, I deem it incumbent on me to supply some particulars 
which he has left unnoticed: thus it will be known who this Manichaeus was, whence he 
came, and what was the nature of his presumptuous daring. 

A Saracen named Scythian married a captive from the Upper Thebes. On her account 
he dwelt in Egypt, and having versed himself in the learning of the Egyptians, he subtly in- 
troduced the theory of Empedocles and Pythagoras among the doctrines of the Christian 
faith. Asserting that there were two natures, a good and an evil one, he termed, as Empedocles 
had done, the latter Discord, and the former Friendship. Of this Scythian, Buddas, who had 
been previously called T erebinthus, became a disciple; and he having proceeded to Babylon, 
which the Persians inhabit, made many extravagant statements respecting himself, declaring 
that he was born of a virgin, and brought up in the mountains. The same man afterwards 
composed four books, one he entitled The Mysteries, another The Gospel, a third The 
Treasure, and the fourth Heads [Summaries]; but pretending to perform some mystic rites, 
he was hurled down a precipice by a spirit,” and so perished. A certain woman at whose 
house he had lodged buried him, and taking possession of his property, bought a boy about 
seven years old whose name was Cubricus: this lad she enfranchised, and having given him 
a liberal education, she soon after died, leaving him all that belonged to Terebinthus, includ- 
ing the books he had written on the principles inculcated by Scythian. Cubricus, the freedman, 
taking these things with him and having withdrawn into the regions of Persia, changed his 
name, calling himself Manes; and disseminated the books of Buddas or Terebinthus among 
his deluded followers as his own. Now the contents of these treatises apparently agree with 
Christianity in expression, but are pagan in sentiment: for Manichaeus being an atheist, incited 
his disciples to acknowledge a plurality of gods, and taught them to worship the sun. He 
also introduced the doctrine of Fate, denying human free-will; and affirmed a transmuta- 
tion of bodies, clearly following the opinions of Empedocles, Pythagoras, and the Egyp- 

228 Cf. Eus. H. E. VII. 31. The literature of Manichaeism is voluminous and will be found in Smith, Diet. of 
the Bible, as well as encyclopaedias like Herzog, McClintock and Strong, &c. 

229 Ttveuparoc : possibly ‘wind.’ 

230 pcrevacoparcoaiv , the converse of metempsychosis. 


Manes, the Founder of the Manichcean Heresy, and on his Origin. 

tians. He denied that Christ existed in the flesh, asserting that he was an apparition; and 
rejected moreover the law and the prophets, calling himself the ‘Comforter,’ — all of which 
dogmas are totally at variance with the orthodox faith of the church. In his epistles he even 
dared to call himself an apostle; but for a pretension so unfounded he brought upon himself 
merited retribution in the following manner. The son of the Persian monarch having been 
attacked with disease, his father became anxious for his recovery, and left no means untried 
in order to effect it; and as he had heard of the wonder-working of Manichaeus, and thinking 
that these miracles were real, he sent for him as an apostle, trusting that through him his 
son might be restored. He accordingly presented himself at court, and with his assumed 
manner undertook the treatment of the young prince. But the king seeing that the child 
died in his hands shut up the deceiver in prison, with the intention of putting him to death. 
However, he contrived to escape, and fled into Mesopotamia; but the king of Persia having 
discovered that he was dwelling there, caused him to be brought thence by force, and after 
having flayed him alive, he stuffed his skin with chaff, and suspended it in front of the gate 
of the city. These things we state not having manufactured them ourselves, but collected 
from a book entitled The disputation of Archelaus bishop ofCaschara (one of the cities of 
Mesopotamia). For Archelaus himself states that he disputed with Manichaeus face to 
face, and mentions the circumstances connected with his life to which we have now alluded. 
Envy thus delights, as we before remarked, to be insidiously at work in the midst of a pros- 
perous condition of affairs. But for what reason the goodness of God permits this to be done, 
whether he wishes thereby to bring into activity the excellence of the principles of the church, 
and to utterly break down the self-importance which is wont to unite itself with faith; or for 
what other cause, is, at the same time, a difficult question, and not relevant to the present 
discussion. For our object is neither to examine the soundness of doctrinal views, nor to 
analyze the mysterious reasons for the providences and judgments of God; but to detail as 
faithfully as possible the history of transactions which have taken place in the churches. The 
way in which the superstition of the Manichaeans sprang up a little before the time of Con- 
stantine has been thus described; now let us return to the times and events which are the 
proper subjects of this history. 

231 The more commonly known name of the town is ‘Carrha,’ and the exact title of Archelaus’ work as it 
appears in Y atesius Annotationes [ed. of 1677, see Introd. p. xvi.] is Disputatio adversus Manichceum. It constitutes 
p. 197-203 of the Annotationes, and is in Latin. It has been published also in Latin by L. A. Zacagui in his col- 
lectanea monumentorum veterum Ecclesice Grcecce ac Latince, 1698. 


Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop ofNiccea, having recovered... 

Chapter XXIII. — Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop ofNiccea, having re- 
covered Confidence, endeavor to subvert theNicene Creed, by plotting against Athanasius. 

The partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile, these latter 
were reinstated in their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those who had been or- 
dained in their stead. Moreover, they came into great consideration with the emperor, who 
honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the orthodox faith. 
They, however, abused the license thus afforded them, by exciting greater commotions in 
the world than they had done before; being instigated to this by two causes — on the one 
hand the Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and bitter animosity 
against Athanasius on the other, because he had so vigorously withstood them in the Synod 
while the articles of faith were under discussion. And in the first place they objected to the 
ordination of Athanasius partly as a person unworthy of the prelacy, and partly because he 
had been elected by disqualified persons. But when Athanasius had shown himself superior 
to this calumny (for having assumed control of the church of Alexandria, he ardently con- 
tended for the Nicene creed), then Eusebius exerted himself to the utmost insidiously to 
cause the removal of Athanasius and to bring Arius back to Alexandria; for he thought that 
thus only he should be able to expunge the doctrine of consubstantiality, and introduce 
Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius, desiring him to re-admit Arius and his 
adherents into the church. Now the tone of his letter indeed was that of entreaty, but openly 
he menaced him. And as Athanasius would by no means accede to this, he endeavored to 
induce the emperor to give Arius an audience, and then permit him to return to Alexandria: 
and by what means he attained his object, I shall mention in its proper place. Meanwhile 
before this another commotion was raised in the church. In fact, her own children again 
disturbed her peace. Eusebius Pamphilus says, “ that immediately after the Synod, Egypt 
became agitated by intestine divisions: not assigning, however, the reason for this, so that 
hence he has won the reputation of disingenuousness, and of avoiding to specify the causes 
of these dissensions, from a determination on his part not to give his sanction to the pro- 
ceedings at Nicaea. Yet as we ourselves have discovered from various letters which the 
bishops wrote to one another after the Synod, the term homoousios troubled some of them. 
So that while they occupied themselves in a too minute investigation of its import, they 
roused the strife against each other; it seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither 
party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. 
Those who objected to the word homoousios, conceived that those who approved it favored 

232 Euseb. Life of Const. III. 23. 


Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop ofNiccea, having recovered... 

the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as 
subverting the existence of the Son of God. And again the advocates of this term, charging 
their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen super- 
stitions. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene 
Creed; Eusebius again denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, 
saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence of these 
misunderstandings, each of them wrote as if contending against adversaries: and although 
it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and 
all acknowledged that there is one God in three Persons, yet from what cause I am unable 
to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore could in no way endure to 
be at peace. 

233 Cf. ch. 5, and note. 

234 It is not clear why Socrates joins the name of Montanus to that of Sabellius; the former was undoubtedly 
in accord with the common doctrine of the church as to the Trinity. Cf. Epiphan. Hcer. XL VIII. and Tertullian 
ad. Praxeam. It was, however, frequendy alleged by various writers of the age that Montanus and the Montanists 
held erroneous views concerning the Godhead. See Eus. H. E. V. 16. 


Of the Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch,... 

Chapter XXIV. — Of the Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, 

on whose account a Sedition broke out and almost ruined the City. 

Having therefore convened a Synod at Antioch, they deposed Eustathius, as a supporter 
of the Sabellian heresy, rather than of the tenets which the council at Nicaea had formulated. 
As some affirm [this measure was taken] for other and unsatisfactory reasons, though none 
other have been openly assigned: this is a matter of common occurrence; the bishops are 
accustomed to do this in all cases, accusing and pronouncing impious those whom they 
depose, but not explaining their warrant for so doing. George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, 
one of the number of those who abominated the term homoousios, assures us in his Encomium 
of Eusebius Emisenus, that they deposed Eustathius as favoring Sabellianism, on the impeach- 
ment of Cyrus, bishop of Beroea. Of Eusebius Emisenus we shall speak elsewhere in due 
order. George has written of Eustathius [somewhat inconsistently]; for after asserting 
that he was accused by Cyrus of maintaining the heresy of Sabellius, he tells us again that 
Cyrus himself was convicted of the same error, and degraded for it. Now how was it possible 
that Cyrus should accuse Eustathius as a Sabellian, when he inclined to Sabellianism himself? 
It appears likely therefore that Eustathius must have been condemned on other grounds. 
At that time, however, there arose a dangerous sedition at Antioch on account of his depos- 
ition: for when they proceeded to the election of a successor, so fierce a dissension was 
kindled, as to threaten the whole city with destruction. The populace was divided into two 
factions, one of which vehemently contended for the translation of Eusebius Pamphilus 
from Caesarea in Palestine to Antioch; the other equally insisted on the reinstatement of 
Eustathius. And the populace of the city were infected with the spirit of partisanship in this 
quarrel among the Christians, a military force was arrayed on both sides with hostile intent, 
so that a bloody collision would have taken place, had not God and the dread of the emperor 
repressed the violence of the multitude. For the emperor through letters, and Eusebius by 
refusing to accept the bishopric, served to allay the ferment: on which account that prelate 
was exceedingly admired by the emperor, who wrote to him commending his prudent de- 
termination, and congratulating him as one who was considered worthy of being bishop 
not of one city merely, but of almost the whole world. Consequently it is said that the epis- 
copal chair of the church at Antioch was vacant for eight consecutive years after this peri- 
od; but at length by the exertions of those who aimed at the subversion of the Nicene 
creed, Euphronius was duly installed. This is the amount of my information respecting the 
Synod held at Antioch on account of Eustathius. Immediately after these events Eusebius, 

235 See II. 9. 

236 Socrates is in error here, as according to Eusebius ( H . E. X. 1), immediately after the deposition of Eu- 
stathius and his own refusal of the bishopric of Antioch, Paulinus was transferred there from the see of Tyre. 
This was in 329 a.d., so that no vacancy of eight years intervened. 


Of the Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch,... 

who had long before left Berytus, and was at that time presiding over the church at 
Nicomedia, strenuously exerted himself in connection to those of his party, to bring back 
Arius to Alexandria. But how they managed to effect this, and by what means the emperor 
was prevailed on to admit both Arius and with him Euzoius into his presence must now be 

— u 


Of the Presbyter who exerted himself for the Recall of Arius. 


Chapter XXV. — Of the Presbyter who exerted himself for the Recall of Arius. 

The Emperor Constantine had a sister named Constantia, the widow of Licinius, who 
had for some time shared the imperial dignity with Constantine, but had assumed tyrannical 
powers and had been put to death in consequence. This princess maintained in her household 
establishment a certain confidential presbyter, tinctured with the dogmas of Arianism; Eu- 
sebius and others having prompted him, he took occasion in his familiar conversations with 
Constantia, to insinuate that the Synod had done Arius injustice, and that the common report 
concerning him was not true. Constantia gave full credence to the presbyter’s assertions, 
but durst not report them to the emperor. Now it happened that she became dangerously 
ill, and her brother visited her daily. As the disease became aggravated and she expected to 
die, she commended this presbyter to the emperor, testifying to his diligence and piety, as 
well as his devoted loyalty to his sovereign. She died soon after, whereupon the presbyter 
became one of the most confidential persons about the emperor; and having gradually in- 
creased in freedom of speech, he repeated to the emperor what he had before stated to his 
sister, affirming that Arius had no other views than the sentiments avowed by the Synod; 
and that if he were admitted to the imperial presence, he would give his full assent to what 
the Synod had decreed: he added, moreover, that he had been unreasonably slandered. The 
presbyter’s words appeared strange to the emperor, and he said, ‘If Arius subscribes with 
the Synod and holds its views, I will both give him an audience, and send him back to Alex- 
andria with honor.’ Having thus said, he immediately wrote to him in these words: 

‘Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Arius.’ 

It was intimated to your reverence some time since, that you might come to my court, 
in order to obtain an interview with us. We are not a little surprised that you did not do this 
immediately. Wherefore having at once mounted a public vehicle, hasten to arrive at our 
court; that when you have experienced our clemency and regard for you, you may return 
to your own country. May God protect you, beloved. Dated the twenty- fifth of November. 

This was the letter of the emperor to Arius. And I cannot but admire the ardent zeal 
which the prince manifested for religion: for it appears from this document that he had often 
before exhorted Arius to change his views, inasmuch as he censures his delaying to return 
to the truth, although he had himself written frequently to him. Now on the receipt of this 
letter, Arius came to Constantinople accompanied by Euzo'ius, whom Alexander had divested 
of his deaconship when he excommunicated Arius and his partisans. The emperor accord- 

237 Cf. Rufinus, H.E. 1. 1 1 . The fact that the name of this presbyter is not mentioned, and Athanasius’ apparent 
ignorance of the story, together with the untrustworthiness of Rufinus, throw suspicion on the authenticity of 
this account. Cf. also ch. 39, note 2. 


Of the Presbyter who exerted himself for the Recall of Arius. 

ingly admitted them to his presence, and asked them whether they would agree to the creed. 
And when they readily gave their assent, he ordered them to deliver to him a written state- 
ment of their faith. 


Arius, on being recalled , presents a Recantation to the Emperor, and pretends... 

Chapter XXVI. — Arius, on being recalled, presents a Recantation to the Emperor, and pretends 
to accept the Nicene Creed. 

They having drawn up a declaration to the following effect, presented it to the emperor. 
‘Arius and Euzoius, to our Most Religious and Pious Lord, the Emperor Constantine. 
‘In accordance with the command of your devout piety, sovereign lord, we declare our 
faith, and before God profess in writing, that we and our adherents believe as follows: 

‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty: and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who 
was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, 
both those which are in the heavens and those upon the earth; who descended, and became 
incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into the heavens, and will again come to 
judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection 
of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in 
one Catholic Church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other. 

‘This faith we have received from the holy gospels, the Lord therein saying to his dis- 
ciples: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 

Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” If we do not so believe and truly receive the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit, as the whole Catholic Church and the holy Scriptures teach (in which 
we believe in every respect), God is our judge both now, and in the coming judgment. 
Wherefore we beseech your piety, most devout emperor, that we who are persons consecrated 
to the ministry, and holding the faith and sentiments of the church and of the holy Scriptures, 
may by your pacific and devoted piety be reunited to our mother, the Church, all superfluous 
questions and disputings being avoided: that so both we and the whole church being at 
peace, may in common offer our accustomed prayers for your tranquil reign, and on behalf 
of your whole family.’ 

238 The old English translation rendered ‘made’ on the assumption that the Greek was yeyevripevov , not 
Y£Y£vvr|pevov . So also Valesius read and translated ‘factum; but Bright without mentioning any variant reading, 
gives Y£Y£ vvr mevov , and we have ventured to translate accordingly. 

239 Matt, xxviii. 9. 


Arius having returned to Alexandria with the Emperor's Consent, and not... 

Chapter XXVII. — Arius having returned to Alexandria with the Emperor’s Consent, and not 

being received by Athanasius, the Partisans of Eusebius bring Many Charges against 

Athanasius before the Emperor. 

Arius having thus satisfied the emperor, returned to Alexandria. But his artifice for 
suppressing the truth did not succeed; for on his arrival at Alexandria, as Athanasius would 
not receive him, but turned away from him as a pest, he attempted to excite a fresh commo- 
tion in that city by disseminating his heresy. Then indeed both Eusebius himself wrote, and 
prevailed on the emperor also to write, in order that Arius and his partisans might be read- 
mitted into the church. Athanasius nevertheless wholly refused to receive them, and wrote 
to inform the emperor in reply, that it was impossible for those who had once rejected the 
faith, and had been anathematized, to be again received into communion on their return. 
But the emperor, provoked at this answer, menaced Athanasius in these terms: 

‘Since you have been apprised of my will, afford unhindered access into the church to 
all those who are desirous of entering it. For if it shall be intimated to me that you have 
prohibited any of those claiming to be reunited to the church, or have hindered their admis- 
sion, I will forthwith send some one who at my command shall depose you, and drive you 
into exile.’ 

The emperor wrote thus from a desire of promoting the public good, and because he 
did not wish to see the church ruptured; for he labored earnestly to bring them all into 
harmony. Then indeed the partisans of Eusebius, ill-disposed towards Athanasius, imagining 
they had found a seasonable opportunity, welcomed the emperor’s displeasure as an auxiliary 
to their own purpose: and on this account they raised a great disturbance, endeavoring to 
eject him from his bishopric; for they entertained the hope that the Arian doctrine would 
prevail only upon the removal of Athanasius. The chief conspirators against him were Eu- 
sebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicsea, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidnum 
in Upper Moesia, and Valens of Mursain Upper Pannonia. These persons suborn by bribes 
certain of the Melitian heresy to fabricate various charges against Athanasius; and first they 
accuse him through the Melitians Ision, Eudaemon and Callinicus, of having ordered the 
Egyptians to pay a linen garment as tribute to the church at Alexandria. But this calumny 
was immediately disproved by Alypius and Macarius, presbyters of the Alexandrian church, 
who then happened to be at Nicomedia; they having convinced the emperor that these 
statements to the prej udice of Athanasius were false. Wherefore the emperor by letter severely 
censured his accusers, but urged Athanasius to come to him. But before he came the Euse- 
bian faction anticipating his arrival, added to their former accusation the charge of another 
crime of a still more serious nature than the former; charging Athanasius with plotting 
against his sovereign, and with having sent for treasonable purposes a chest full of gold to 


Arius having returned to Alexandria with the Emperor's Consent, and not... 

one Philumenus. When, however, the emperor had himself investigated this matter at 
Psamathia, which is in the suburbs of Nicomedia, and had found Athanasius innocent, he 
dismissed him with honor; and wrote with his own hand to the church at Alexandria to assure 
them that their bishop had been falsely accused. It would indeed have been both proper and 
desirable to have passed over in silence the subsequent attacks which the Eusebians made 
upon Athanasius, lest from these circumstances the Church of Christ should be judged un- 
favorably of by those who are adverse to its interests . 240 But since having been already 
committed to writing, they have become known to everybody, I have on that account deemed 
it necessary to make as cursory allusion to these things as possible, the particulars of which 
would require a special treatise. Whence the slanderous accusation originated, and the 
character of those who devised it, I shall now therefore state in brief. Mareotes 241 is a district 
of Alexandria; there are contained in it very many villages, and an abundant population, 
with numerous splendid churches; these churches are all under the jurisdiction of the 
bishop of Alexandria, and are subject to his city as parishes. " There was in this region a 
person named Ischyras, who had been guilty of an act deserving of many deaths; for al- 

though he had never been admitted to holy orders, he had the audacity to assume the title 
of presbyter, and to exercise sacred functions belonging to the priesthood. But having been 
detected in his sacrilegious career, he made his escape thence and sought refuge in Nicomedia, 
where he implored the protection of the party of Eusebius; who from their hatred to Ath- 
anasius, not only received him as a presbyter, but even promised to confer upon him the 
dignity of the episcopacy, if he would frame an accusation against Athanasius, listening as 
a pretext for this to whatever stories Ischyras had invented. For he spread a report that he 
had suffered dreadfully in consequence of an assault; and that Macarius had rushed furiously 
toward the altar, had overturned the table, and broken a mystical cup: he added also that 
he had burnt the sacred books. As a reward for this accusation, the Eusebian faction, as I 
have said, promised him a bishopric; foreseeing that the charges against Macarius would 

240 From the sentiments expressed here may be inferred the respect of the author for the church. His view 
on the suppression of facts which did not redound to the honor of the church does not show a very high ideal 
of history, but it bespeaks a laudable regard for the good name of Christianity. 

241 This description is probably dependent on Athanasius, who says in his Apologia contra Arianos, 85, 
‘Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. In that region there never was a bishop or a deputy bishop; but the churches 
of the whole region are subject to the bishop of Alexandria. Each of the presbyters has separate villages, which 
are numerous, — sometimes ten or more. ’ Ischyras was probably a resident of one of the obscurest of these villages; 
and it can be seen that what is said of his doings here could easily come to pass. 

242 JtapotKta = later ‘parochia’; hence the derivatives. 

243 Another evidence of the author’s reverence for the institutions of religion. For subsequent history of 
Ischyras, see II. 20. 


Arius having returned to Alexandria with the Emperor's Consent, and not... 

involve, along with the accused party, Athanasius, under whose orders he would seem to 
have acted. But this charge they formulated later; before it they devised another full of the 
bitterest malignity, to which I shall now advert. Having by some means, I know not what, 
obtained a man’s hand; whether they themselves had murdered any one, and cut off his 
hand, or had severed it from some dead body, God knows and the authors of the deed: but 
be that as it may, they publicly exposed it as the hand of Arsenius, a Melitian bishop, while 
they kept the alleged owner of it concealed. This hand, they asserted, had been made use of 
by Athanasius in the performance of certain magic arts; and therefore it was made the gravest 
ground of accusation which these calumniators had concerted against him: but as it generally 
happens, all those who entertained any pique against Athanasius came forward at the same 
time with a variety of other charges. When the emperor was informed of these proceedings, 
he wrote to his nephew Dalmatius the censor, who then had his residence at Antioch in 
Syria, directing him to order the accused parties to be brought before him, and after due 
investigation, to inflict punishment on such as might be convicted. He also sent thither 
Eusebius and Theognis, that the case might be tried in their presence. When Athanasius 
knew that he was to be summoned before the censor, he sent into Egypt to make a strict 
search after Arsenius; and he ascertained indeed that he was secreted there, but was unable 
to apprehend him, because he often changed his place of concealment. Meanwhile the em- 
peror suppressed the trial which was to have been held before the censor, on the following 


On Account of the Charges against Athanasius, the Emperor convokes a Synod... 

Chapter XXVIII.— On Account of the Charges against Athanasius, the Emperor convokes a 

Synod of Bishops at Tyre. 

The emperor had ordered a Synod of bishops to be present at the consecration of the 
church which he had erected at Jerusalem. He therefore directed that, as a secondary matter, 
they should on their way first assemble at Tyre, to examine into the charges against Athanas- 
ius; in order that all cause of contention being removed there, they might the more peacefully 
perform the inaugural ceremonies 244 in the dedication of the church of God. This was the 
thirtieth year of Constantine’s reign, and sixty bishops were thus convened at Tyre from 
various places, on the summons of Dionysius the consul. As to Macarius the presbyter, he 
was conducted from Alexandria in chains, under a military escort; while Athanasius was 
unwilling to go thither, not so much from dread, because he was innocent of the charges 
made, as because he feared lest any innovations should be made on the decisions of the 
council at Nicaea; he was, however, constrained to be present by the menacing letters of the 
emperor. For it had been written him that if he did not come voluntarily, he should be 
brought by force. 

244 eTu(3arr|pia : lit. ‘ceremonies performed at embarkation.’ 


Of Arsenins, and his Hand which was said to have been cut off. 

Chapter XXIX . — Of Arsenius, and his Hand which was said to have been cut off. 

The special providence of God drove Arsenius also to Tyre; for, disregarding the injunc- 
tions he had received from the accusers who had bribed him, he went thither disguised to 
see what would be done. It by some means happened that the servants of Archelaus, the 
governor of the province, heard some persons at an inn affirm that Arsenius, who was re- 
ported to have been murdered, was concealed in the house of one of the citizens. Having 
heard this and marked the individuals by whom this statement was made, they communicated 
the information to their master, who causing strict search to be made for the man immedi- 
ately, discovered and properly secured him; after which he gave notice to Athanasius that 
he need not be under any alarm, inasmuch as Arsenius was alive and there present. Arsenius 
on being apprehended, at first denied that he was the person; but Paul, bishop of Tyre, who 
had formerly known him, established his identity. Divine providence having thus disposed 
matters, Athanasius was shortly after summoned by the Synod; and as soon as he presented 
himself, his traducers exhibited the hand, and pressed their charge. He managed the affair 
with great prudence, for he enquired of those present, as well as of his accusers, who were 
the persons who knew Arsenius? and several having answered that they knew him, he caused 
Arsenius to be introduced, having his hands covered by his cloak. Then he again asked them, 
‘Is this the person who has lost a hand?’ All were astonished at the unexpectedness of this 
procedure, except those who knew whence the hand had been cut off; for the rest thought 
that Arsenius was really deficient of a hand, and expected that the accused would make his 
defense in some other way. But Athanasius turning back the cloak of Arsenius on one side 
showed one of the man’s hands; again, while some were supposing that the other hand was 
wanting, permitting them to remain a short time in doubt afterward he turned back the 
cloak on the other side and exposed the other hand. Then addressing himself to those present, 
he said, ‘Arsenius, as you see, is found to have two hands: let my accusers show the place 
whence the third was cut off .’ 245 

245 A full account of the circumstances narrated in this and the following chapters is given by Athanasius in 
his Apol. contra Arianos, 65, 71 and 72. Parallel accounts may also be found in Sozom. II. 25; Theodoret, H. E. 
I. 28; Ruflnus, H. E. X. 17; Philostorgius, II. 11. 


Athanasius is found Innocent of what he was accused; his Accusers take to... 

Chapter XXX. — Athanasius is found Innocent of what he was accused; his Accusers take to 

Matters having been brought to this issue with regard to Arsenius, the contrivers of this 
imposture were reduced to perplexity; and Achab , 246 who was also called John, one of the 
principal accusers, having slipped out of court in the tumult, effected his escape. Thus 


Athanasius cleared himself from this charge, without having recourse to any pleading;" 
for he was confident that the sight only of Arsenius alive would confound his calumniators. 

246 In Athanasius’ account ( Apol . c. Arian. 65) this man’s name is given as ’Apxacp(Archaph), which is an 
Egyptian name; its assonance with the biblical ’Axaa(3 may have made the latter a current appellation. John was 
no doubt his monastic name. 

247 Ttapaypacprj , legal term; ypacpij = ‘indictment,’ Jtapaypacpfi = ‘demurrer,’ so used by Isocrates, Demosthenes, 
&c., of the classical authors. 


When the Bishops will not listen to Athanasius' Defense on the Second Charge,... 

Chapter XXXI. — When the Bishops will not listen to Athanasius’ Defense on the Second 

Charge, he betakes himself to the Emperor. 

But in refuting the false allegations against Macarius, he made use of legal forms; taking 
exception in the first place to Eusebius and his party, as his enemies, protesting against the 
injustice of any man’s being tried by his adversaries. He next insisted on its being proved 
that his accuser Ischyras had really obtained the dignity of presbyter; for so he had been 
designated in the indictment. But as the judges would not allow any of these objections, the 
case of Macarius was entered into, and the informers being found deficient of proofs, the 
hearing of the matter was postponed, until some persons should have gone into Mareotis, 
in order that all doubtful points might be examined on the spot. Athanasius seeing that 
those very individuals were to be sent to whom he had taken exception (for the persons sent 
were Theognis, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, Valens, and Ursacius), exclaimed that ‘their 
procedure was both treacherous and fraudulent; for that it was unjust that the presbyter 
Macarius should be detained in bonds, while the accuser together with the judges who were 
his adversaries, were permitted to go, in order that an ex parte collection of the facts in 
evidence might be made.’ Having made this protest before the whole Synod and Dionysius 
the governor of the province, and finding that no one paid any attention to his appeal, he 


privately withdrew. Those, therefore, who were sent to Mareotis, having made an ex parte 
investigation, held that what the accuser said was true. 

248 ek povo|i£pou(;, Lat. ex parte; the term, however, is not restricted to this technical sense, but may be used 

of any form of partiality. Cf. Sophocles’ Greek Lex. of Rom. and Byz. As already noted in the Intro, p. ix, Harnack 
denies that there is any special juristic knowledge shown here; it must be conceded that the language used is 
such as might have been at the command of any intelligent and educated non-professional man. 


On the Departure of Athanasius, those who composed the Synod vote his D... 

Chapter XXXII. — On the Departure of Athanasius, those who composed the Synod vote his 


Thus Athanasius departed, hastening to the emperor, and the Synod in the first place 
condemned him in his absence; and when the result of the enquiry which had been instituted 
at Mareotis was presented, they voted to depose him; loading him with opprobrious epithets 
in their sentence of deposition, but being wholly silent respecting the disgraceful defeat of 
the charge of murder brought by his calumniators. They moreover received into communion 
Arsenius, who was reported to have been murdered; and he who had formerly been a bishop 
of the Melitian heresy subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius as bishop of the city of 
Hypselopolis. Thus by an extraordinary course of circumstances, the alleged victim of assas- 
sination by Athanasius, was found alive to assist in deposing him. 


The Members of the Synod proceed from Tyre to Jerusalem, and having celebrated... 

Chapter XXXIII.— The Members of the Synod proceed from Tyre to Jerusalem, and having 
celebrated the Dedication of the ‘ New Jerusalem,’ receive Arius and his Followers into 

Letters in the meantime were brought from the emperor directing those who composed 
the Synod to hasten to the New Jerusalem : 249 having therefore immediately left Tyre, they 
set forward with all despatch to Jerusalem, where, after celebrating a festival in connection 
with the consecration of the place, they readmitted Arius and his adherents into commu- 
nion, in obedience, as they said, to the wishes of the emperor, who had signified in his 
communication to them, that he was fully satisfied respecting the faith of Arius and Euzoius. 


They moreover wrote to the church at Alexandria, stating that all envy being now ban- 
ished, the affairs of the church were established in peace: and that since Arius had by his 
recantation acknowledged the truth, it was but just that, being thenceforth a member of the 
church, he should also be henceforth received by them, alluding to the banishment of Ath- 
anasius [in their statement that ‘all envy was now banished’]. At the same time they sent 
information of what had been done to the emperor, in terms nearly to the same effect. But 
whilst the bishops were engaged in these transactions, other letters came unexpectedly from 
the emperor, intimating that Athanasius had fled to him for protection; and that it was ne- 
cessary for them on his account to come to Constantinople. This unanticipated communic- 
ation from the emperor was as follows. 

249 See above, ch. 17. 

250 Arius, the originator of the Arian heresy, died before the council at Jerusalem; hence Valesius infers that 
this Arius must be another man of the same name mentioned in the encyclical of Alexander of Alexandria as a 
partisan of the arch-heretic. Cf. ch. 6. 

251 This letter is contained in Athanasius’ de Synod, 21, and a portion of it in Apol. contra Arian, 84. 


The Emperor summons the Synod to himself by Letter, in order that the Charges... 

Chapter XXXIV. — The Emperor summons the Synod to himself by Letter, in order that the 

Charges against Athanasius might be carefully examined before him. 

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to the bishops convened at Tyre. 

I am indeed ignorant of the decisions which have been made by your Council with so 
much turbulence and storm: but the truth seems to have been perverted by some tumultuous 
and disorderly proceedings: because, that is to say, in your mutual love of contention, which 
you seem desirous of perpetuating, you disregard the consideration of those things which 
are acceptable to God. It will, however, I trust, be the work of Divine Providence to dissipate 
the mischiefs resulting from this jealous rivalry, as soon as they shall have been detected; 
and to make it apparent to us, whether ye who have been convened have had regard to truth, 
and whether your decisions on the subjects which have been submitted to your judgment 
have been made apart from partiality or prejudice. Wherefore it is indispensable that you 
should all without delay attend upon my piety, that you may yourselves give a strict account 
of your transactions. For what reason I have deemed it proper to write thus, and to summon 
you before me, you will learn from what follows. As I was making my entry into the city 
which bears our name, in this our most flourishing home, Constantinople, — and it happened 
that I was riding on horseback at the time, — suddenly the Bishop Athanasius, with certain 
ecclesiastics whom he had around him, presented himself so unexpectedly in our path, as 
to produce an occasion of consternation. For the Omniscient God is my witness that at first 
sight I did not recognize him until some of my attendants, in answer to my enquiry, informed 
me, as was very natural, both who he was, and what injustice he had suffered. At that time 
indeed I neither conversed, nor held any communication with him. But as he repeatedly 
entreated an audience, and I had not only refused it, but almost ordered that he should be 
removed from my presence, he said with greater boldness, that he petitioned for nothing 
more than that you might be summoned hither, in order that in our presence, he, driven 
by necessity to such a course, might have a fair opportunity afforded him of complaining 
of his wrongs. Wherefore as this seems reasonable, and consistent with the equity of my 
government, I willingly gave instructions that these things should be written to you. My 
command therefore is, that all, as many as composed the Synod convened at Tyre, should 
forthwith hasten to the court of our clemency, in order that from the facts themselves you 
may make clear the purity and integrity of your decision in my presence, whom you cannot 
but own to be a true servant of God. It is in consequence of the acts of my religious service 
towards God that peace is everywhere reigning; and that the name of God is sincerely had 
in reverence even among the barbarians themselves, who until now were ignorant of the 
truth. Now it is evident that he who knows not the truth, does not have a true knowledge 
of God also: yet, as I before said even the barbarians on my account, who am a genuine 
servant of God, have acknowledged and learned to worship him, whom they have perceived 
in very deed protecting and caring for me everywhere. So that from dread of us chiefly, they 


The Emperor summons the Synod to himself by Letter, in order that the Charges... 

have been thus brought to the knowledge of the true God whom they now worship. Never- 
theless we who pretend to have a religious veneration for (I will not say who guard) the holy 
mysteries of his church, we, I say, do nothing but what tends to discord and animosity, and 
to speak plainly, to the destruction of the human race. But hasten, as I have already said, all 
of you to us as speedily as possible: and be assured that I shall endeavor with all my power 
to cause that what is contained in the Divine Law may be preserved inviolate, on which 
neither stigma nor reproach shall be able to fasten itself; and this will come to pass when its 
enemies, who under cover of the sacred profession introduce numerous and diversified 
blasphemies, are dispersed, broken to pieces, and altogether annihilated. 


The Synod not having come to the Emperor, the Partisans of Eusebius accuse... 

Chapter XXXV. — The Synod not having come to the Emperor, the Partisans of Eusebius accuse 

Athanasius of having threatened to divert the Corn supplied to Constantinople from Al- 

9 ^9 

exandria: the Emperor being exasperated at this banishes Athanasius into Gaul. 

This letter rendered those who constituted the Synod very fearful, wherefore most of 
them returned to their respective cities. But Eusebius, Theognis, Maris, Patrophilus, Ursacius, 
and Valens, having gone to Constantinople, would not permit any further enquiry to be 
instituted concerning the broken cup, the overturned communion table, and the murder 
of Arsenius; but they had recourse to another calumny, informing the emperor that Ath- 
anasius had threatened to prohibit the sending of corn which was usually conveyed from 
Alexandria to Constantinople. They affirmed also that these menaces were heard from the 
lips of Athanasius by the bishops Adamantius, Anubion, Arbathion and Peter, for slander 
is most prevalent when of the assertor of it appears to be a person worthy of credit. Hence 
the emperor being deceived, and excited to indignation against Athanasius by this charge, 
at once condemned him to exile, ordering him to reside in the Gauls. Now some affirm that 
the emperor came to this decision with a view to the establishment of unity in the church, 
since Athanasius was inexorable in his refusal to hold any communion with Arius and his 
adherents. He accordingly took up his abode at Treves, a city of Gaul. 

252 Cf. Theodoret, H. E. I. 31. The ancient Gallia or Gaul included the modern France, Belgium, Lombardy, 
and Sardinia. 


Of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophist. 

Chapter XXXVI . — Of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophist. 

The bishops assembled at Constantinople deposed also Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, a 
city of Galatia Minor, on this account. A certain rhetorician of Cappadocia named Asterius 
having abandoned his art, and professed himself a convert to Christianity, undertook the 
composition of some treatises, which are still extant, in which he commended the dogmas 
of Arius; asserting that Christ is the power of God, in the same sense as the locust and the 
palmer- worm are said by Moses to be the power of God, with other similar utterances. 
Now Asterius was in constant association with the bishops, and especially with those of 
their number who did not discountenance the Arian doctrine: he also attended their Synods, 
in the hope of insinuating himself into the bishopric of some city: but he failed to obtain 
ordination, in consequence of having sacrificed during the persecution . 254 Going therefore 
throughout the cities of Syria, he read in public the books which he had composed. Marcellus 
being informed of this, and wishing to counteract his influence, in his over-anxiety to confute 
him, fell into the diametrically opposite error; for he dared to say, as the Samosatene had 
done, that Christ was a mere man. When the bishops then convened at Jerusalem had intel- 
ligence of these things, they took no notice of Asterius, because he was not enrolled even in 
the catalogue of ordained priests; but they insisted that Marcellus, as a priest, should give 
an account of the book which he had written. Finding that he entertained Paul of Samosata’s 
sentiments, they required him to retract his opinion; and he being thoroughly ashamed of 
himself, promised to burn his book. But the convention of bishops being hastily dissolved 
by the emperor’s summoning them to Constantinople, the Eusebians on their arrival at that 
city, again took the case of Marcellus into consideration; and as Marcellus refused to fulfil 
his promise of burning his untimely book, those present deposed him, and sent Basil into 
Ancyra in his stead. Moreover Eusebius wrote a refutation of this work in three books, in 


which he exposed its erroneous doctrine. Marcellus however was afterwards reinstated 
in his bishopric by the Synod at Sardica, on his assurance that his book had been misunder- 

253 Joel ii. 25. 

254 In the persecution under Decius (249 a.d.), those who yielded so far as to perform the heathen rites were 
branded with the title of ‘the lapsed’; and a controversy arose later on the manner in which they should be 
treated. One of the consequences of lapsing was disqualification for high office in the church. See Neander, Hist, 
of Christ. Ch. Vol. I. p. 226 seq. 

255 Paul of Samosata, who has been surnamed in modern times the Socinus of the third century, was deposed 
in 269 a.d. by a council held at Antioch for unchristian character and unsound views. His peculiarity in the latter 
respect was his denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ. For fuller information, see Eus. H. E. VII. 30; Epiphan. 
Hcer. LXVII.; Neander, Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. I, 602 seq.; Gieselee, Hist, of the Ch. Vol. I. 201; Smith and 
Wace Diet, of Christ. Biog. 

256 See II. 20. 


Of Marcellas Bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophist. 

stood, and that on that account he was supposed to favor the Samosatene’s views. But of 
this we shall speak more fully in its proper place. 


After the Banishment of Athanasius, Arius having been sent for by the Emperor,... 

Chapter XXXVII. — After the Banishment of Athanasius, Arius having been sent for by the 

Emperor, raises a Disturbance against Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. 

While these things were taking place, the thirtieth year of Constantine’s reign was 
completed. But Arius with his adherents having returned to Alexandria, again disturbed 
the whole city; for the people of Alexandria were exceedingly indignant both at the restoration 
of this incorrigible heretic with his partisans, and also because their bishop Athanasius had 
been sent to exile. When the emperor was apprised of the perverse disposition of Arius, he 
once more ordered him to repair to Constantinople, to give an account of the commotions 
he had afresh endeavored to excite. It happened at that time that Alexander, who had some 
time before succeeded Metrophanes, presided over the church at Constantinople. That this 
prelate was a man of devoted piety was distinctly manifested by the conflict he entered into 
with Arius; for when Arius arrived and the people were divided into two factions and the 
whole city was thrown into confusion: some insisting that the Nicene Creed should be by 
no means infringed on, while others contended that the opinion of Arius was consonant to 
reason. In this state of affairs, Alexander was driven to straits: more especially since Eusebius 
of Nicomedia had violently threatened that he would cause him to be immediately deposed, 
unless he admitted Arius and his followers to communion. Alexander, however, was far less 
troubled at the thought of his own deposition as fearful of the subversion of the principles 
of the faith, which they were so anxious to effect: and regarding himself as the constituted 
guardian of the doctrines recognized, and the decisions made by the council at Nicaea, he 
exerted himself to the utmost to prevent their being violated or depraved. Reduced to this 
extremity, he bade farewell to all logical resources, and made God his refuge, devoting 
himself to continued fasting and never ceased from praying. Communicating his purpose 
to no one, he shut himself up alone in the church called Irene: there going up to the altar, 
and prostrating himself on the ground beneath the holy communion table, he poured forth 
his fervent prayers weeping; and this he ceased not to do for many successive nights and 
days. What he thus earnestly asked from God, he received: for his petition was such a one: 
‘If the opinion of Arius were correct, he might not be permitted to see the day appointed 
for its discussion; but that if he himself held the true faith, Arius, as the author of all these 
evils, might suffer the punishment due to his impiety.’ 


The Death of Arius. 

Chapter XXXVIII .— The Death of Arias 257 

Such was the supplication of Alexander. Meanwhile the emperor, being desirous of 
personally examining Arius, sent for him to the palace, and asked him whether he would 
assent to the determinations of the Synod at Nicaea. He without hesitation replied in the 
affirmative, and subscribed the declaration of the faith in the emperor’s presence, acting 
with duplicity. The emperor, surprised at his ready compliance, obliged him to confirm his 
signature by an oath. This also he did with equal dissimulation. The way he evaded, as I 
have heard, was this: he wrote his own opinion on paper, and carried it under his arm, so 
that he then swore truly that he really held the sentiments he had written. That this is so, 
however, I have written from hearsay, but that he added an oath to his subscription, I have 
myself ascertained, from an examination of the emperor’s own letters. The emperor being 
thus convinced, ordered that he should be received into communion by Alexander, bishop 
of Constantinople. It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the 
church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For 
going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he 
paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he 
approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, 
a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent 
relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, 
and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a 
faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed 
by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of 
his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately 
died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind 
the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, 
there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death. So disastrous 
an occurrence filled with dread and alarm the party of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia; and 
the report of it quickly spread itself over the city and throughout the whole world. As the 
king grew more earnest in Christianity and confessed that the confession at Nicaea was at- 
tested by God, he rejoiced at the occurrences. He was also glad because of his three sons 
whom he had already proclaimed Caesars; one of each of them having been created at every 
successive decennial anniversary of his reign. To the eldest, whom he called Constantine, 
after his own name, he assigned the government of the western parts of the empire, on the 
completion of his first decade. His second son Constantius, who bore his grandfather’s 
name, he constituted Caesar in the eastern division, when the second decade had been 

257 For a reproduction of the circumstances related in this chapter, together with a historical estimate of 
them based on additional evidence, see Neander, Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. II. p. 384-388. 


The Death ofArius. 

completed. And Constans, the youngest, he invested with a similar dignity, in the thirtieth 
year of his own reign. 


The Emperor falls sick and dies. 

Chapter XXXIX . — The Emperor falls sick and dies. 

A year having passed, the Emperor Constantine having just entered the sixty- fifth year 
of his age, was taken with a sickness; he therefore left Constantinople, and made a voyage 
to Helenopolis, that he might try the effect of the medicinal hot springs which are found in 
the vicinity of that city. Perceiving, however, that his illness increased, he deferred the use 
of the baths; and removing from Helenopolis to Nicomedia, he took up his residence in the 
suburbs, and there received Christian baptism. After this he became cheerful; and making 

his will, appointed his three sons heirs to the empire, allotting to each one of them his portion, 
in accordance with the arrangements he had made while living. He also granted many 


privileges to the cities of Rome and Constantinople; and entrusting the custody of his will 
to that presbyter by whose means Arius had been recalled, and of whom we have already 
made mention, he charged him to deliver it into no one’s hand, except that of his son Con- 
stantius, to whom he had given the sovereignty of the East. After the making of his will, he 
survived a few days and died. Of his sons none were present at his death. A courier was 
therefore immediately despatched into the East, to inform Constantius of his father’s decease. 

258 It was the belief of many in the earlier ages of the church that baptism had a certain magical power purging 
away the sins previous to it, but having no force as regards those that might follow; this led many to postpone 
their baptism until disease or age warned them of the nearness of death; such delayed baptism was called ‘clinic 
baptism,’ and was discouraged by the more judicious and spiritual- minded Fathers, some of whom doubted its 
validity and rebuked those who delayed as actuated by selfishness and desire to indulge in sin. The church, 
however, encouraged it in the cases of gross offenders. Cf. Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. IV. 3, and XI. 11, and Bennett, 
Christian Archceology, pp. 407 and 409. 

259 Cf. Euseb. Life of Const. IV. 63, and Rufinus, H.E. I. 11. The story is, however, doubtful, as Valesius ob- 
serves. It is more likely that some one of the lay officials of the government, or, as Philostorgius says, Eusebius 
of Nicomedia, was entrusted with this will, and not a mere presbyter. That it was probably Eusebius of Nicomedia 
becomes the more probable when we consider that that bishop also probably baptized Constantine. 


The Funeral of the Emperor Constantine. 

Chapter XL. — The Funeral of the Emperor Constantine. 

The body of the emperor was placed in a coffin of gold by the proper persons, and then 
conveyed to Constantinople, where it was laid out on an elevated bed of state in the palace, 
surrounded by a guard, and treated with the same respect as when he was alive, and this 
was done until the arrival of one of his sons. When Constantius was come out of the eastern 
parts of the empire, it was honored with an imperial sepulture, and deposited in the church 
called The Apostles: which he had caused to be constructed for this very purpose, that the 
emperors and prelates might receive a degree of veneration but little inferior to that which 
was paid to the relics of the apostles. The Emperor Constantine lived sixty-five years, and 
reigned thirty-one. He died in the consulate of Felician and Tatian, on the twenty-second 
of May, in the second year of the 278th Olympiad." This book, therefore, embraces a 
period of thirty- one years. 

260 337 a.d. The 22d of May that year was the day of Pentecost. 


Book II 

Book II. 

Chapter I. — Introduction containing the Reason for the Author’s Revision of his First and 

Second Books. 

Rufinus, who wrote an Ecclesiastical History in Latin," has erred in respect to chrono- 
logy. For he supposes that what was done against Athanasius occurred after the death of 
the Emperor Constantine: he was also ignorant of his exile to the Gauls and of various other 
circumstances. Now we in the first place wrote the first two books of our history following 
Rufinus; but in writing our history from the third to the seventh, some facts we collected 
from Rufinus, others from different authors, and some from the narration of individuals 
still living. Afterward, however, we perused the writings of Athanasius, wherein he depicts 
his own sufferings and how through the calumnies of the Eusebian fiction he was banished, 
and judged that more credit was due to him who had suffered, and to those who were wit- 
nesses of the things they describe, than to such as have been dependent on conjecture, and 
had therefore erred. Moreover, having obtained several letters of persons eminent at that 
period, we have availed ourselves of their assistance also in tracing out the truth as far as 
possible. On this account we were compelled to revise the first and second books of this 
history, using, however, the testimony of Rufinus where it is evident that he could not be 
mistaken. It should also be observed, that in our former edition, neither the sentence of 
deposition which was passed upon Arius, nor the emperor’s letters were inserted, but simply 
the narration or facts in order that the history might not become bulky and weary the 
readers with tedious matters of detail. But in the present edition, such alterations and addi- 
tions have been made for your sake, O sacred man of God, Theodore," in order that you 
might not be ignorant what the princes wrote in their own words, as well as the decisions 
of the bishops in their various Synods, wherein they continually altered the confession of 
faith. Wherefore, whatever we have deemed necessary we have inserted in this later edition. 
Having adopted this course in the first book, we shall endeavor to do the same in the con- 
secutive portion of our history, I mean the second. On this let us now enter. 

261 Rufinus’ Historia Ecclesiastica, in two books, begins with Arius and ends with Theodosius the Great. It 
is not very accurate, but written largely from memory. It is dedicated to Chromatius, bishop of Aquileja, and 
translated into Greek by Gelasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. On the edition used by Socrates, see Introd. and I. 12, 
note 1. Cf. also on his knowledge of Latin, II. 23, 30, and 37. 

262 to iepe tou Oeou avSpume OeoSwpe; cf. Introd. p. x, also VI. Introd. and VII. 48. 


Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and his Party, by again endeavoring to introduce... 

Chapter II. — Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and his Party, by again endeavoring to introduce 

the Arian Heresy, create Disturbances in the Churches. 

After the death of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and 
Theognis of Nicaea, imagining that a favorable opportunity had arisen, used their utmost 
efforts to expunge the doctrine of homoousion, and to introduce Arianism in its place. They, 
nevertheless, despaired of effecting this, if Athanasius should return to Alexandria: in order 
therefore to accomplish their designs, they sought the assistance of that presbyter by whose 
means Arius had been recalled from exile a little before. How this was done shall now be 
described. The presbyter in question presented the will and the request of the deceased king 
to his son Constantius; who finding those dispositions in it which he was most desirous of, 
for the empire of the East was by his father’s will apportioned to him, treated the presbyter 
with great consideration, loaded him with favors, and ordered that free access should be 
given him both to the palace and to himself. This license soon obtained for him familiar 
intercourse with the empress, as well as with her eunuchs. There was at that time a chief 
eunuch of the imperial bed-chamber named Eusebius; him the presbyter persuaded to adopt 
Arian’s views, after which the rest of the eunuchs were also prevailed on to adopt the same 
sentiments. Not only this but the empress also, under the influence of the eunuchs and the 
presbyters, became favorable to the tenets of Arius; and not long after the subject was intro- 
duced to the emperor himself. Thus it became gradually diffused throughout the court, and 
among the officers of the imperial household and guards, until at length it spread itself over 
the whole population of the city. The chamberlains in the palace discussed this doctrine 
with the women; and in the family of every citizen there was a logical contest. Moreover, 
the mischief quickly extended to other provinces and cities, the controversy, like a spark, 
insignificant at first, exciting in the auditors a spirit of contention: for every one who inquired 
the cause of the tumult, found immediately occasion for disputing, and determined to take 
part in the strife at the moment of making the inquiry. By general altercation of this kind 
all order was subverted; the agitation, however, was confined to the cities of the East, those 
of Illyricum and the western parts of the empire meanwhile were perfectly tranquil, because 
they would not annul the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. As this affair increased, going 
from bad to worse, Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party looked upon popular ferment as 
a piece of good fortune. For only thus they thought they would be enabled to constitute 
some one who held their own sentiments bishop of Alexandria. But the return of Athanasius 
at that time defeated their purpose; for he came thither fortified by a letter from one of the 
Augusti, which the younger Constantine, who bore his father’s name, addressed to the 
people of Alexandria, from T reves, a city in Gaul." A copy of this epistle is here subj oined. 

263 There is some difference of opinion as to the exact year of the recall of Athanasius. Baronius and others 
allege that this took place in 338 a.d., the year after the death of Constantine; but Valesius maintains that Ath- 


Eusebius , Bishop of Nicomedia, and his Party, by again endeavoring to introduce... 

anasius was recalled the year preceding. This he infers from the words of Athanasius ( Apol . 
the title of the letter which Constantine the younger addressed to the church in Alexandria. 

:. Arian, 61), and 


Athanasius, encouraged by the Letter of Constantine the Younger, returns. . . 

Chapter III. — Athanasius, encouraged by the Letter of Constantine the Younger, returns to 


Constantine Caesar to the members of the Catholic Church of the Alexandrians. 

It cannot, I conceive, have escaped the knowledge of your devout minds, that Athanas- 
ius, the expositor of the venerated law, was sent for a while unto the Gauls, lest he should 
sustain some irreparable injury from the perverseness of his blood-thirsty adversaries, whose 
ferocity continually endangered his sacred life. To evade this [perverseness], therefore, he 
was taken from the jaws of the men who threatened him into a city under my jurisdiction, 
where, as long as it was his appointed residence, he has been abundantly supplied with every 
necessity: although his distinguished virtue trusting in divine aid would have made light of 
the pressure of a more rigorous fortune. And since our sovereign, my father, Constantine 
Augustus of blessed memory, was prevented by death from accomplishing his purpose of 
restoring this bishop to his see, and to your most sanctified piety, I have deemed it proper 
to carry his wishes into effect, having inherited the task from him. With how great veneration 
he has been regarded by us, ye will learn on his arrival among you; nor need any one be 
surprised at the honor I have put upon him, since I have been alike influenced by a sense 
of what was due to so excellent a personage, and the knowledge of your affectionate solicitude 
respecting him. May Divine Providence preserve you, beloved brethren. 

Relying on this letter, Athanasius came to Alexandria, and was most joyfully received 
by the people of the city. Nevertheless as many in it as had embraced Arianism, combining 
together, entered into conspiracies against him, by which frequent seditions were excited, 
affording a pretext to the Eusebians for accusing him to the emperor of having taken posses- 
sion of the Alexandrian church on his own responsibility, in spite of the adverse judgment 
of a general council of bishops. So far indeed did they succeed in pressing their charges, that 
the emperor became exasperated, and banished him from Alexandria. How indeed this 
came about I shall hereafter explain. 


On the Death of Eusebius Pamphilus, Acacius succeeds to the Bishopric of... 

Chapter IV. — On the Death of Eusebius Pamphilus, Acacius succeeds to the Bishopric of 

At this time Eusebius, who was bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and had the surname 
of Pamphilus, having died, Acacius, his disciple, succeeded him in the bishopric. This indi- 
vidual published several books, and among others a biographical sketch of his master. 


The Death of Constantine the Younger. 

Chapter V . — The Death of Constantine the Younger. 

Not long after this the brother of the Emperor Constantius, Constantine the younger, 
who bore his father’s name, having invaded those parts of the empire which were under the 
government of his younger brother Constans, engaging in a conflict with his brother’s sol- 
diery, was slain by them. This took place under the consulship of Acindynus and Proclus . 264 

264 340 a.d. 


Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, when at the Point of Death proposes... 

Chapter VI. — Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, when at the Point of Death proposes the 
Election either of Paul or of Macedonius as his Successor. 

About the same time another disturbance in addition to those we have recorded, was 
raised at Constantinople on the following account. Alexander, who had presided over the 
churches in that city, and had strenuously opposed Arius, departed this life, having occu- 

pied the bishopric for twenty-three years and lived ninety-eight years in all, without having 
ordained any one to succeed him. But he had enjoined the proper persons to choose one of 
the two whom he named; that is to say, if they desired one who was competent to teach, and 
of eminent piety, they should elect Paul, whom he had himself ordained presbyter, a man 
young indeed in years, but of advanced intelligence and prudence; but if they wished a man 
of venerable aspect, and external show only of sanctity, they might appoint Macedonius, 
who had long been a deacon among them and was aged. Hence there arose a great contest 
respecting the choice of a bishop which troubled the church exceedingly; for ever since the 
people were divided into two parties, one of which favored the tenets of Arius, while the 
other held what the Nicene Synod had defined, those who held the doctrine of consubstan- 
tiality always had the advantage during the life of Alexander, the Arians disagreeing among 
themselves and perpetually conflicting in opinion. But after the death of that prelate, the 
issue of the struggle became doubtful, the defenders of the orthodox faith insisting on the 
ordination of Paul, and all the Arian party espousing the cause of Macedonius. Paul therefore 
was ordained bishop in the church called Irene, which is situated near the great church 
of Sophia; whose election appeared to be more in accordance with the suffrage of the de- 

265 Socrates is undoubtedly mistaken in setting the date of Alexander’s death as late as 340 a.d. The council 
convened to examine and confute the charges against Athanasius met in 339 a.d., and the record at that date 
has it (see chap. 7) that Eusebius had taken possession of the see of Constantinople. Alexander must therefore 
have died before 339. 

266 So called, not because there was a saint or eminent person of that name, but on the same principle as the 
church called Sophia. For the history of the latter church, see Dehio and Bezold, Die Kirchliche Baukuns des 
Ahendlandes, I. p. 21. 


The Emperor Constantins ejects Paul after his Election to the Bishopric,... 

Chapter VII .—The Emperor Constantius ejects Paul after his Election to the Bishopric, and 
sending for Eusebius ofNicomedia, invests him with the Bishopric of Constantinople. 

Not long afterwards the emperor having arrived at Constantinople was highly incensed 
at the consecration [of Paul]; and having convened an assembly of bishops of Arian senti- 
ments, he divested Paul of his dignity, and translating Eusebius from the see ofNicomedia, 
he appointed him bishop of Constantinople. Having done this the emperor proceeded to 


Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in Syria, causes a New... 

Chapter VIII. — Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in Syria, causes a New 

Creed to be promulgated. 

Eusebius, however, could by no means remain quiet, but as the saying is, left no stone 
unturned, in order to effect the purpose he had in view. He therefore causes a Synod to be 
convened at Antioch in Syria, under pretense of dedicating the church which the father of 
the Augusti had commenced, and which his son Constantius had finished in the tenth year 
after its foundations were laid, but with the real intention of subverting and abolishing the 
doctrine of the homoousion. There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various 
cities. Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, 
recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanas- 
ius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome," there, nor had he sent a substitute, al- 

O /TO 

though an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances 
against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. This Synod assembled at Antioch in presence 
of the emperor Constantius in the consulate of Marcellus and Probinus, which was the 
fifth year after the death of Constantine, father of the Augusti. Placitus, otherwise called 
Flaccillus, successor to Euphronius, at that time presided over the church at Antioch. The 
confederates of Eusebius had previously designed to calumniate Athanasius; accusing him 
in the first place of having acted contrary to a canon which they then constituted, in resuming 
his episcopal authority without the license of a general council of bishops, inasmuch as on 
his return from exile he had on his own responsibility taken possession of the church; and 
then because a tumult had been excited on his entrance and many were killed in the riot; 
moreover that some had been scourged by him, and others brought before the tribunals. 
Besides they brought forward what had been determined against Athanasius at Tyre. 

267 So called in distinction from the “New Rome,” or Constantinople. Cf. Canons of Council of Chalcedon, 

268 The word ‘canon’ here is evidentiy used in its general sense. There is no record of any enactment requiring 
the consent of the bishop of Rome to the decisions of the councils before they could be considered valid. There 
may have been a general understanding to that effect, having the force of an unwritten law. In any case the use 
of the word by Socrates is quite singular, unless we assume that he supposed there was such an enactment 
somewhere, as is implied by its use ordinarily. 

269 341 a.d. 


Of Eusebius of Emisa. 

Chapter IX . — Of Eusebius of Emisa. 

On the ground of such charges as these, they proposed another bishop for the Alexan- 
drian church, and first indeed Eusebius surnamed Emisenus. Who this person was, George, 
bishop of Laodicea, who was present on this occasion, informs us. For he says in the book 
which he has composed on his life, that Eusebius was descended from the nobility of Edessa 
in Mesopotamia, and that from a child he had studied the holy Scriptures; that he was 
afterwards instructed in Greek literature by a master resident at Edessa; and finally that the 
sacred books were expounded to him by Patrophilus and Eusebius, of whom the latter 
presided over the church at Caesarea, and the former over that at Scythopolis. Afterwards 
when he dwelt in Antioch, it happened that Eustathius was deposed on the accusation of 
Cyrus of Beroea for holding the tenets of Sabellius. Then again he associated with Euphronius, 
successor of Eustathius, and avoiding a bishopric, he retired to Alexandria, and there devoted 
himself to the study of philosophy. On his return to Antioch he formed an intimate acquaint- 
ance with Placitus [or Flaccillus], the successor of Euphronius. At length he was ordained 
bishop of Alexandria, by Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople; but did not go thither in 
consequence of the attachment of the people of that city to Athanasius, and was therefore 
sent to Emisa. As the inhabitants of Emisa excited a sedition on account of his appoint- 


ment, — for he was commonly charged with the study and practice of judicial astrology, 

— he fled and came to Laodicea, to George, who has given so many historical details of him. 
George having taken him to Antioch, procured his being again brought back to Emisa by 
Placitus and Narcissus; but he was afterwards charged with holding the Sabellian views. 
George more elaborately describes the circumstances of his ordination and adds at the close 
that the emperor took him with him in his expedition against the barbarians, and that mir- 
acles were wrought by his hand. The information given by George concerning Eusebius of 
Emisa may be considered reproduced at sufficient length by me here. 

270 Sozom. H. E. III. 6. From the passage in Sozomen it appears that it was customary in Edessa to teach the 
Scriptures to boys, and that many of them thus became quite familiar with the Bible, knowing many passages 
by heart. 

271 paSqpariKrjv . From its use in astronomy the science of mathematics soon came to be identified with 
that counterfeit of astronomy, — astrology. It is so used by Sextus Empiricus (616. 20; 728. 20) andbylamblichus, 
Myrt. 277. 2. 


The Bishops assembled at Antioch, on the Refusal of Eusebius ofEmisa to... 

Chapter X. — The Bishops assembled at Antioch, on the Refusal of Eusebius ofEmisa to accept 
the Bishopric of Alexandria, ordain Gregory, and change the Language of the Nicene 

Now at that time Eusebius having been proposed and fearing to go to Alexandria, the 
Synod at Antioch designated Gregory as bishop of that church. This being done, they altered 
the creed; not as condemning anything in that which was set forth at Nicaea, but in fact with 
a determination to subvert and nullify the doctrine of consubstantiality by means of frequent 
councils, and the publication of various expositions of the faith, so as gradually to establish 
the Arian views. How these things issued we will set forth in the course of our narrative; 


but the epistle then promulgated respecting the faith was as follows: 

‘We have neither become followers of Arius, — for how should we who are bishops be 
guided by a presbyter? — nor have we embraced any other faith than that which was set forth 
from the beginning. But being constituted examiners and judges of his sentiments, we admit 
their soundness, rather than adopt them from him: and you will recognize this from what 
we are about to state. We have learned from the beginning to believe in one God of the 
Universe, the Creator and Preserver of all things both those thought of and those perceived 
by the senses: and in one only-begotten Son of God, subsisting before all ages, and co-existing 
with the Father who begat him, through whom also all things visible and invisible were 
made; who in the last days according to the Father’s good pleasure, descended, and assumed 
flesh from the holy virgin, and having fully accomplished his Father’s will, that he should 
suffer, and rise again, and ascend into the heavens, and sit at the right hand of the Father; 
and is coming to judge the living and the dead, continuing King and God for ever. We believe 
also in the Holy Spirit. And if it is necessary to add this, we believe in the resurrection of 
the flesh, and the life everlasting.’ 

Having thus written in their first epistle, they sent it to the bishops of every city. But 
after remaining some time at Antioch, as if to condemn the former, they published another 
letter in these words: 

Another Exposition of the Faith. 

In conformity with evangelic and apostolic tradition, we believe in one God the Father 
Almighty, the Creator and Framer of the universe. And in one Ford Jesus Christ, his Son, 
God the only-begotten, through whom all things were made: begotten of the Father before 
all ages, God of God, Whole of Whole, Only of Only, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Ford 
of Ford; the living Word, the Wisdom, the Fife, the True Fight, the Way of Truth, the Resur- 

272 Athanas. de Synodd. 22, 23. 


The Bishops assembled at Antioch, on the Refusal of Eusebius ofEmisa to... 

rection, the Shepherd, the Gate; immutable and inconvertible; the unaltering image of the 
Divinity, Substance and Power, and Counsel and Glory of the Father; born ‘before all cre- 
ation’; who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according as it is declared in the 
Gospel," and the Word was God, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things 
subsist: who in the last days came down from above, and was born of the virgin according 
to the Scriptures; and was made man, the Mediator between God and men, the Apostle of 
our Faith, and the Prince of Life, as he says, ‘I came down from heaven, not to do mine 
own will, but the will of him that sent me.’ Who suffered on our behalf, and rose again for 
us on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the right hand of the 
Father; and will come again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead. [We 
believe] also in the Holy Spirit, who is given to believers for their consolation, sanctification, 
and perfection; even as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, ‘Go and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit’; that is to say of the Father who is truly the Father, of the Son who is truly the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit who is truly the Holy Spirit, these words not being simply or insigni- 
ficantly applied, but accurately expressing the proper subsistence, glory, and order, of each 
of these who are named: so that there are three in person, but one in concordance. Holding 
therefore this faith in the presence of God and of Christ, we anathematize all heretical and 
false doctrine. And if any one shall teach contrary to the sound and right faith of the Scrip- 
tures, affirming that there is or was a period or an age before the Son of God existed, let him 
be accursed. And if any one shall say that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or 
that he is offspring as one of the offsprings, and shall not hold each of the aforesaid doctrines 
as the Divine Scriptures have delivered them to us: or if any one shall teach or preach any 
other doctrine contrary to that which we have received, let him be accursed. For we truly 
and unreservedly believe and follow all things handed down to us from the sacred Scriptures 
by the prophets and apostles. 

Such was the exposition of the faith published by those then assembled at Antioch, to 
which Gregory also subscribed as bishop of Alexandria, although he had not yet entered 
that city. The Synod having done these things, and legislated some other canons, was dis- 
solved. At this time it happened that public affairs also were disturbed. The nation called 
Franks made incursions into the Roman territories in Gaul, and at the same time there oc- 
curred violent earthquakes in the East, and especially at Antioch, which continued to suffer 
concussions during a whole year. 

273 John i. 1. 

274 John vi. 38. 

275 Matt, xxviii. 19. 


On the Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria, tended by a Military Escort, Athanasius... 

Chapter XI. — On the Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria, tended by a Military Escort, Athanas- 
ius flees. 

After these things, Syrian, the military commander, and the corps of heavy armed sol- 
diers, five thousand in number, conducted Gregory to Alexandria; and such of the citizens 
as were of Arian sentiments combined with them. But it will be proper here to relate by 
what means Athanasius escaped the hands of those who wished to apprehend him, after his 
expulsion from the church. It was evening, and the people were attending the vigil there, a 


service being expected. The commander arrived, and posted his forces in order of battle 
on every side of the church. Athanasius having observed what was done, considered within 
himself how he might prevent the people’s suffering in any degree on his account: accordingly 
having directed the deacon to give notice of prayer, after that he ordered the recitation of a 
psalm; and when the melodious chant of the psalm arose, all went out through one of the 
church doors. While this was doing, the troops remained inactive spectators, and Athanas- 
ius thus escaped unhurt in the midst of those who were chanting the psalm, and immediately 
hastened to Rome. Gregory then prevailed in the church: but the people of Alexandria, being 
indignant at this procedure, set the church called that of Dionysius on fire. Let this be suffi- 
cient on this subject. Now Eusebius, having thus far obtained his object, sent a deputation 
to Julius, bishop of Rome, begging that he would himself take cognizance of the charges 


against Athanasius, and order a judicial investigation to be made in his presence. 

— u 


276 auva^eox;: literally ‘congregation,’ from ouvayw; but later applied to any service held in the church. In 
mod. Euva^dptov , ‘Prayer-book.’ 

277 So also Sozom. III. 7. But according to Valesius, both Socrates and Sozomen are here mistaken, and Eu- 
sebius sent the deputation before the council at Antioch, as is shown by the words of Athanasius in his Apol. 
contra Arian., 21. 

278 See Hammond, Canons of the Church (notes on the Canons of Nicaea), for the prerogatives of the see of 
Rome recognized at this time. 


The People of Constantinople restore Paul to his See after the Death of... 

Chapter XII. — The People of Constantinople restore Paul to his See after the Death of Eusebius, 

while theArians elect Macedonius. 

But Eusebius did not live to learn the decision of Julius concerning Athanasius, for he 
died a short time after that Synod was held. Whereupon the people introduced Paul again 
into the church of Constantinople: the Arians, however, ordained Macedonius at the same 
time, in the church dedicated to Paul. This those who had formerly co-operated with Euse- 
bius (that disturber of the public peace) brought about, assuming all his authority. These 
were Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, 
Ursacius of Singidunum in Upper Mysia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia. Ursacius 
and Valens indeed afterward altered their opinions, and presented a written recantation of 
them to bishop Julius, so that on subscribing the doctrine of consubstantiability they were 
again admitted to communion; but at that time they warmly supported the Arian error, and 
were instigators of the most violent conflicts in the churches, one of which was connected 
with Macedonius at Constantinople. By this intestine war among the Christians, continuous 
seditions arose in that city, and many lives were sacrificed in consequence of these occur- 


Paul is again ejected from the Church by Constantins, in consequence of... 

Chapter XIII.— Paul is again ejected from the Church by Constantius, in consequence of the 

Slaughter of Hermogenes, his General. 

Intelligence of these proceedings reached the ears of the Emperor Constantius, whose 
residence was then at Antioch. Accordingly he ordered his general Hermogenes, who had 
been despatched to Thrace, to pass through Constantinople on his way, and expel Paul from 
the church. He, on arriving at Constantinople, threw the whole city into confusion, attempt- 
ing to cast out the bishops; for sedition immediately arose from the people in their eagerness 
to defend the bishop. And when Hermogenes persisted in his efforts to drive out Paul by 
means of his military force, the people became exasperated as is usual in such cases; and 
making a desperate attack upon him, they set his house on fire, and after dragging through 
the city, they at last put him to death. This took place in the consulate of the two Au- 
gusti, — that is to say, the third consulship, — Constantius, and the second of Constans: at 
which time Constans, having subdued the Franks, compelled them to enter into a treaty of 
peace with the Romans. The Emperor Constantius, on being informed of the assassination 
of Hermogenes, set off on horseback from Antioch, and arriving at Constantinople imme- 
diately expelled Paul, and then punished the inhabitants by withdrawing from them more 
than 40,000 measures of the daily allowance of wheat which had been granted by his father 
for gratuitous distribution among them: for prior to this catastrophe, nearly 80,000 measures 
of wheat brought from Alexandria had been bestowed on the citizens." He hesitated, 
however, to ratify 281 the appointment of Macedonius to the bishopric of that city, being ir- 
ritated against him not only because he had been ordained without his own consent; but 
also because on account of the contests in which he had been engaged with Paul, Hermogenes, 
his general, and many other persons had been slain. But having given him permission to 
minister in the church in which he had been consecrated, he returned to Antioch. 

279 342 a.d. This assassination of Hermogenes was evidently recorded in that portion of Am. Marcellinus’ 
work which has been lost; at least a record of it is referred to in that author’s Rerum Gestarum, XIV. x. 2 (ed. 

280 On the gratuitous distribution of grain or bread practised under Constantine and later under Theodosius, 
see Cod. Theod. XIV. tit. XVI., and cf. Eunap. Aedes. par. 22. 

281 Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. xi. 19, on the control over the appointment of bishops by the emperor at 
this time. 


The Arians remove Gregory from the See of Alexandria, and appoint George... 

Chapter XIV. — The Arians remove Gregory from the See of Alexandria, and appoint George 
in his Place . 282 

About the same time the Arians ejected Gregory from the see of Alexandria, on the 
ground that he was unpopular and at the same time because he had set a church" on fire, 
and did not manifest sufficient zeal in promoting the interests of their party." They 
therefore inducted George into his see, who was a native of Cappadocia, and had acquired 
the reputation of being an able advocate of their tenets. 

282 There is an error here, repeated also by Sozomen (III. 7), but corrected by Theodoret, H. E. II. 4 and 12, 
without the mention of the names of his predecessors. The error consists in the statement that Gregory was 
ejected at this time. It appears that he remained in his position until the Council of Sardica, by which he was 
deposed and excommunicated. He survived this council by six months. 

283 That of Dionysius. 

284 This is the same Gregory that is mentioned in ch. 1 0 as violendy put into possession of the see of Alexandria 
by the Arians. It is evident that they were disappointed in him. 


Athanasius and Paul going to Rome , and having obtained Letters from Bishop... 

O c 

Chapter XV. — Athanasius and Paul " going to Rome, and having obtained Letters from 
Bishop Julius, recover their respective Dioceses. 

Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western 
division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Con- 
stantine’s sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before 
stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus 
of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on 
various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There 
each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of 
Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commend- 
atory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those 
by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops 
departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters 
to the parties to whom they were addressed. These persons considering themselves treated 
with indignity by the reproaches of Julius, called a council at Antioch, assembled themselves 
and dictated a reply to his letters as the expression of the unanimous feeling of the whole 
Synod. It was not his province, they said, to take cognizance of their decisions in reference 

to any whom they might wish to expel from their churches; seeing that they had not opposed 
themselves to him, when Novatus was ejected from the church. These things the bishops of 
the Eastern church communicated to Julius, bishop of Rome. But, as on the entry of Ath- 
anasius into Alexandria, a tumult was raised by the partisans of George the Arian, in con- 
sequence of which, it is affirmed, many persons were killed; and since the Arians endeavor 
to throw the whole odium of this transaction on Athanasius as the author of it, it behooves 
us to make a few remarks on the subject. God the Judge of all only knows the true causes of 
these disorders; but no one of any experience can be ignorant of the fact, that such fatal ac- 
cidents are for the most part concomitants of the factious movements of the populace. It is 
vain, therefore, for the calumniators of Athanasius to attribute the blame to him; and espe- 

285 Julius, in his letter to the Eastern bishops (Ep. I. adv. Eusebianos, 4 and 5), mentions Athanasius and 
Marcellus, ex-bishop of Ancyra, as with him at this time, but does not allude to Paul; from which it has been 
inferred that Socrates is in error here in setting the date of Paul’s visit to Rome at this time, as otherwise Julius 
would have named him also with Athanasius and Marcellus. Sozomen, as usual, copies the mistake of Socrates; 
cf. Sozom. III. 15. 

286 It appears from this that there was no recognition of any special prerogative or right belonging to the 
bishop of Rome as yet. The position of that bishop during these agitations in the Eastern church, when the 
Western church was in comparative peace, seems to be that of an arbitrator voluntarily invoked, rather than of 
an official judge. Cf. Neander, Hist, of the Christ. Church, Vol. II. p. 171, 172. 


Athanasius and Paul going to Rome , and having obtained Letters from Bishop... 


dally Sabinus, bishop of the Macedonian heresy. For had the latter reflected on the 
number and magnitude of the wrongs which Athanasius, in conjunction with the rest who 
hold the doctrine of consubstantiality, had suffered from the Arians, or on the many com- 
plaints made of these things by the Synods convened on account of Athanasius, or in short 
on what that arch-heretic Macedonius himself has done throughout all the churches, he 
would either have been wholly silent, or if constrained to speak, would have spoken more 
plausible words, instead of these reproaches. But as it is intentionally overlooking all these 
things, he willfully misrepresents the facts. He makes, however, no mention whatever of the 
heresiarch, desiring by all means to conceal the daring enormities of which he knew him to 
be guilty. And what is still more extraordinary, he has not said one word to the disadvantage 
of the Arians, although he was far from entertaining their sentiments. The ordination of 
Macedonius, whose heretical views he had adopted, he has also passed over in silence; for 
had he mentioned it, he must necessarily have recorded his impieties also, which were most 
distinctly manifested on that occasion. Let this suffice on this subject. 

287 i.e. in his Collection of Synodical Transactions, mentioned in chap. 17. 


The Emperor Constantins, through an Order to Philip the Prcetorian Prefect,... 

Chapter XVI. — The Emperor Constantius, through an Order to Philip the Prcetorian Prefect, 

secures the Exile of Paul, and the Installation of Macedonius in his See. 

When the Emperor Constantius, who then held his court at Antioch, heard that Paul 
had again obtained possession of the episcopal throne, he was excessively enraged at his 
presumption. He therefore despatched a written order to Philip, the Praetorian Prefect, 
whose power exceeded that of the other governors of provinces, and who was styled the 
second person from the emperor, to drive Paul out of the church again, and introduce 
Macedonius into it in his place. Now the prefect Philip, dreading an insurrectionary move- 
ment among the people, used artifice to entrap the bishop: keeping, therefore, the emperor’s 
mandate secret, he went to the public bath called Zeuxippus, and on pretense of attending 
to some public affairs, sent to Paul with every demonstration of respect, requesting his at- 
tendance there, on the ground that his presence was indispensable. The bishop came; and 
as he came in obedience to this summons, the prefect immediately showed him the emperor’s 
order; the bishop patiently submitted condemnation without a hearing. But as Philip was 
afraid of the violence of the multitude — for great numbers had gathered around the building 
to see what would take place, for their suspicions had been aroused by current reports — he 
commanded one of the bath doors to be opened which communicated with the imperial 
palace, and through that Paul was carried off, put on board a vessel provided for the purpose, 
and so sent into exile immediately. The prefect directed him to go to Thessalonica, the 
metropolis of Macedonia, whence he had derived his origin from his ancestors; commanding 
him to reside in that city, but granting him permission to visit other cities of Illyricum, while 
he strictly forbade his passing into any portion of the Eastern empire. Thus was Paul, contrary 
to his expectation, at once expelled from the church, and from the city, and again hurried 
off into exile. Philip, the imperial prefect, leaving the bath, immediately proceeded to the 
church. Together with him, as if thrown there by an engine, Macedonius rode seated in the 
same seat with the prefect in the chariot seen by everybody, and a military guard with drawn 
swords was about them. The multitude was completely overawed by this spectacle, and both 
Arians and Homoousians hastened to the church, every one endeavoring to secure an en- 
trance there. As the prefect with Macedonius came near the church, an irrational panic 
seized the multitude and even the soldiers themselves; for as the assemblage was so numerous 
and no room to admit the passage of the prefect and Macedonius was found, the soldiers 
attempted to thrust aside the people by force. But the confined space into which they were 
crowded together rendering it impossible to recede, the soldiers imagined that resistance 
was offered, and that the populace intentionally stopped the passage; they accordingly began 
to use their naked swords, and to cut down those that stood in their way. It is affirmed that 

288 Seurepoi; pera (laaiAea; not only second in rank, but first after him in power, ‘his right-hand man.’ Cf. 
Vergil’s alter ah illo, Ed. V. 49, and VIII. 39. 


The Emperor Constantins, through an Order to Philip the Prcetorian Prefect,... 

about 3150 persons were massacred on this occasion; of whom the greater part fell under 
the weapons of the soldiers, and the rest were crushed to death by the desperate efforts of 
the multitude to escape their violence. After such distinguished achievements, Macedonius, 
as if he had not been the author of any calamity, but was altogether guiltless of what had 
been perpetrated, was seated in the episcopal chair by the prefect, rather than by the eccle- 
siastical canon. Thus, then, by means of so many murders in the church, Macedonius and 
the Arians grasped the supremacy in the churches. About this period the emperor built the 
great church called Sophia, adjoining to that named Irene, which being originally of small 
dimensions, the emperor’s father had considerably enlarged and adorned. In the present 
day both are seen within one enclosure, and have but one appellation. 


Athanasius, intimidated by the Emperor's Threats, returns to Rome again 

Chapter XVII .—Athanasius, intimidated by the Emperor’s Threats, returns to Rome again. 

At this time another accusation was concocted against Athanasius by the Arians, who 
invented this pretext for it. The father of the Augusti had long before granted an allowance 
of corn to the church of the Alexandrians for the relief of the indigent. This, they asserted, 
had usually been sold by Athanasius, and the proceeds converted to his own advantage. The 
emperor, giving credence to this slanderous report, threatened Athanasius with death, as a 
penalty; who, becoming alarmed at the intimation of this threat, took to flight, and kept 
himself concealed. When Julius, bishop of Rome, was apprised of these fresh machinations 
of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received the letter of the then deceased Euse- 
bius, he invited the persecuted Athanasius to come to him, having ascertained where he was 
secreted. The epistle also of the bishops who had been some time before assembled at Antioch, 
just then reached him; and at the same time others from the bishops in Egypt, assuring him 
that the entire charge against Athanasius was a fabrication. On the receipt of these contra- 
dictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from 
Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging 
them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the 


council,” seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no de- 
cisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great 
severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith; in addition, that their former 
proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at 
Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that the charge respecting 
Arsenius had plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did Julius 
write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch; we should have inserted here at 
length, these as well as those letters which were addressed to Julius, did not their prolixity 
interfere with our purpose. But Sabinus, the advocate of the Macedonian heresy, of whom 
we have before spoken, has not incorporated the letters of Julius in his Collection of Synod- 
ical Transactions ; 290 although he has not omitted that which the bishops of Antioch sent 
to Julius. This, however, is usual with him; he carefully introduces such letters as make no 
reference to, or wholly repudiate the term homoousion; while he purposely passes over in 
silence those of a contrary tendency. This is sufficient on this subject. Not long after this, 
Paul, pretending to make a journey from Thessalonica to Corinth, arrived in Italy: upon 

289 Sozom. X. 3 follows Socrates. The contents of the letter written by Julius to the Eusebians, found in Ath- 
anasius’ Apologia contra Arianos, c. 20, are different from those here given by Socrates. Julius there complains 
of their ignoring his invitation to the synod at Rome, but says nothing of any canon such as is mentioned here. 
Cf. ch. 8, note 2. 

290 See above, ch. 15. 


Athanasius, intimidated by the Emperor's Threats, returns to Rome again 

9Q 1 

which both the bishops made an appeal to the emperor of those parts, laying their respect- 

ive cases before him. 

291 Athanasius and Paul. 


The Emperor of the West requests his Brother to send him Three Persons who... 

Chapter XVIII. — The Emperor of the West requests his Brother to send him Three Persons 
who could give an Account of the Deposition of Athanasius and Paul. Those who are sent 
publish Another Form of the Creed. 

When the Western emperor was informed of their affairs, he sympathized with their 
sufferings; and wrote to his brother [Constantius], begging him to send three bishops who 
should explain to him the reason for the deposition of Athanasius and Paul. In compliance 
with this request, Narcissus the Cilician, Theodore the Thracian, Maris of Chalcedon, and 
Mark the Syrian, were deputed to execute this commission; who on their arrival refused to 
hold any communication with Athanasius or his friends, but suppressing the creed which 
had been promulgated at Antioch, presented to the Emperor Constans another declaration 
of faith composed by themselves, in the following terms: 

Another Exposition of the Faith. 

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, of 
whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is named; and in his only-begotten 
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God; 
Light of Light; through whom all things in the heavens and upon the earth, both visible and 
invisible, were made: who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and true Light: 
who in the last days for our sake was made man, and was born of the holy virgin; was cruci- 
fied, and died; was buried, arose again from the dead on the third day, ascended into the 
heavens, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the consummation of 
the ages, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works: 
whose kingdom being perpetual, shall continue to infinite ages; for he shall sit at the right 
hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. [We believe] in 
the Holy Spirit, that is, in the Comforter, whom the Lord, according to his promise, sent to 
his apostles after his ascension into the heavens, to teach them, and bring all things to their 
remembrance: by whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed on him shall be 
sanctified; and those who assert that the Son was made of things which are not, or of another 
substance, and not of God, or that there was a time when he did not exist, the Catholic 
Church accounts as aliens. 

Having delivered this creed to the emperor, and exhibited it to many others also, they 
departed without attending to anything besides. But while there was yet an inseparable 
communion between the Western and Eastern churches, there sprang up another heresy at 
Sirmium, a city of Illyricum; for Photinus, who presided over the churches in that district, 

292 Constantine the Younger. See I. 38, end. 

293 Eph. iii. 15. 


The Emperor of the West requests his Brother to send him Three Persons who... 

a native of the Lesser Galatia, and a disciple of that Marcellus who had been deposed, adopting 
his master’s sentiments, asserted that the Son of God was a mere man. We shall, however, 
enter into this matter more fully in its proper place . 294 

294 See below, ch. 59. 


Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy... 

Chapter XIX. — Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy 

Creed . 295 

After the lapse of about three years from the events above recorded, the Eastern bishops 
again assembled a Synod, and having composed another form of faith, they transmitted it 
to those in Italy by the hands of Eudoxius, at that time bishop of Germanicia, and Martyrius, 
and Macedonius, who was bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. This expression of the Creed, 

being written in more lengthy form, contained many additions to those which had preceded 
it, and was set forth in these words: 

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, of 
whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is named; and in his only-begotten Son 
Jesus Christ our Lord, who was begotten of the Father before all ages; God of God; Light of 
Light; through whom all things in the heavens and upon the earth, both visible and invisible, 
were made: who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and true Light: who in the 
last days for our sake was made man, and was born of the holy virgin; who was crucified, 
and died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into 
heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the consummation 
of the ages, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his 
works: whose kingdom being perpetual shall continue to infinite ages; for he sits at the right 
hand of the Father, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. We believe also 
in the Holy Spirit, that is, in the Comforter, whom the Lord according to his promise sent 
to his apostles after his ascension into heaven, to teach them and bring all things to their 
remembrance, through whom also the souls of those who sincerely believe on him are 
sanctified. But those who assert that the Son was made of things not in being, or of another 
substance, and not of God, or that there was a time or age when he did not exist," the holy 
catholic Church accounts as aliens. The holy and catholic Church likewise anathematizes 
those also who say that there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God before all ages, or 
that he is neither Christ, nor the Son of God, or that the same person is Father, Son, and 

295 This creed was called pavcpocmxot; from its length, and the date of its promulgation must be put after the 
Council of Sardica, according to Hefele. See Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 85, 89, and 180 
(ed. T. & T. Clark). 

296 Movjou earta, lit. ‘the hearth of Mopsus,’ son of Apollo and Manto, daughter of Tiresias, according to 
the Greek mythology. Mopsuestia has become famous in the history of the church through its great citizen, 
Theodore. Cf. Smith and Wace, Did. of Christ. Biog. 

297 This is the end of the first creed adopted at Antioch, as given in the preceding chapter; it is couched in 
almost identical terms in both these versions. The rest of the version here given is the addition that constitutes 
the characteristic of the ‘Lengthy Creed.’ 


Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy... 

Holy Spirit, or that the Son was not begotten, or that the Father begat not the Son by his 
own will or desire. Neither is it safe to affirm that the Son had his existence from things that 
were not, since this is nowhere declared concerning him in the divinely inspired Scriptures. 
Nor are we taught that he had his being from any other pre-existing substance besides the 
Father, but that he was truly begotten of God alone; for the Divine word teaches that there 
is one unbegotten principle without beginning, the Father of Christ. But those who unau- 
thorized by Scripture rashly assert that there was a time when he was not, ought not to 
preconceive any antecedent interval of time, but God only who without time begat him; for 
both times and ages were made through him. Yet it must not be thought that the Son is co- 
inoriginate, or co-unbegotten with the Father: for there is properly no father of the 
co-inoriginate or co-unbegotten. But we know that the Father alone being inoriginate and 
incomprehensible , 300 has ineffably and incomprehensibly to all begotten, and that the Son 
was begotten before the ages, but is not unbegotten like the Father, but has a beginning, viz. 

OA 1 

the Father who begat him, for “the head of Christ is God.” Now although according to 

the Scriptures we acknowledge three things or persons, viz. that of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do not on that account make three Gods: since we know that 
that there is but one God perfect in himself, unbegotten, inoriginate, and invisible, the God 
and Father of the only-begotten, who alone has existence from himself, and alone affords 
existence abundantly to all other things. But neither while we assert that there is one God, 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, do we therefore deny that Christ is 
God before the ages, as the followers of Paul of Samosata do, who affirm that after his in- 
carnation he was by exaltation deified, in that he was by nature a mere man. We know indeed 
that he was subject to his God and Father: nevertheless he was begotten of God, and is by 
nature true and perfect God, and was not afterwards made God out of man; but was for our 
sake made man out of God, and has never ceased to be God. Moreover we execrate and 
anathematize those who falsely style him the mere unsubstantial word of God, having exist- 
ence only in another, either as the word to which utterance is given, or as the word conceived 
in the mind: and who pretend that before the ages he was neither the Christ, the Son of God, 
the Mediator, nor the Image of God; but that he became the Christ, and the Son of God, 
from the time he took our flesh from the virgin, about four hundred years ago. For they 

298 auvavapxov . It has been thought advisable to retain the above uncouth rendering of this word, as also 
of one or two others immediately following, on the ground that the etymological precision at which they aim 
compensates for their non-classical ring. 

299 auvayevvriTOv . 

300 avecptKTOv. 

301 1 Cor. xi. 3. 

302 “There has arisen in our days a certain Marcellus of Galatia, the most execrable of all heretics, who with 
a sacrilegious mind and impious mouth and wicked argument will needs set bounds to the perpetual, eternal, 


Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy... 

assert that Christ had the beginning of his kingdom from that time, and that it shall have 
an end after the consummation of all things and the judgment. Such persons as these are 
the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, the Ancyro-Galatians, who under pretext of estab- 
lishing his sovereignty, like the Jews set aside the eternal existence and deity of Christ, and 
the perpetuity of his kingdom. But we know him to be not simply the word of God by utter- 
ance or mental conception, but God the living Word subsisting of himself; and Son of God 
and Christ; and who did, not by presence only, co-exist and was conversant with his Father 
before the ages, and ministered to him at the creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, 
but was the substantial Word of the Father, and God of God: for this is he to whom the 
Father said, “Let us make man in our image, and according to our likeness:” who in his own 
person appeared to the fathers, gave the law, and spake by the prophets; and being at last 
made man, he manifested his Father to all men, and reigns to endless ages. Christ has not 
attained any new dignity; but we believe that he was perfect from the beginning, and like 
his Father in all things; and those who say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the same 
person, impiously supposing the three names to refer to one and the same thing and person, 
we deservedly expel from the church because by the incarnation they render the Father, 
who is incomprehensible and insusceptible of suffering, subject to comprehension and 
suffering. Such are those denominated Patropassians among the Romans, and by us 
Sabellians. For we know that the Father who sent, remained in the proper nature of his own 
immutable deity; but that Christ who was sent, has fulfilled the economy of the incarnation. 
In like manner those who irreverently affirm that Christ was begotten not by the will and 
pleasure of his Father; thus attributing to God an involuntary necessity not springing from 
choice, as if he begat the Son by constraint, we consider most impious and strangers to the 
truth because they have dared to determine such things respecting him as are inconsistent 
with our common notions of God, and are contrary indeed to the sense of the divinely- in- 
spired Scripture. For knowing that God is self-dependent and Lord of himself we devoutly 
maintain that of his own volition and pleasure he begat the Son. And while we reverentially 
believe what is spoken concerning him ; 304 “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways 
on account of his works”: yet we do not suppose that he was made similarly to the creatures 

and timeless kingdom of our Lord Christ, saying that he began to reign four hundred years since, and shall end 
at the dissolution of the present world. ’ This is the description given of the heresy here hinted at by the synodical 
letter of the Oriental bishops at Sardica. On Marcellus and the various opinions concerning him, see Zahn, 
Marcellus von Ancyra , Gotha, 1867; also monographs on Marcellus by Rettberg (1794) and by Klose (1837 and 
1859). Cf. Neander, Hist. ofChr. Ch. Vol. II. p. 394. 

303 Cf. Tertull. Adv. Prax. i. and ii.; Epiph. Hcer. LVII. 

304 Prov. viii. 22. The ancient bishops quote the LXX verbatim. The English versions (Authorized and Revised) 
follow the Hebrew, ‘The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.’ 


Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy... 

or works made by him. For it is impious and repugnant to the church’s faith to compare 
the Creator with the works created by him; or to imagine that he had the same manner of 
generation as things of a nature totally different from himself: for the sacred Scriptures teach 
us that the alone only-begotten Son was really and truly begotten. Nor when we say that the 
Son is of himself, and lives and subsists in like manner to the Father, do we therefore separate 
him from the Father, as if we supposed them dissociated by the intervention of space and 
distance in a material sense. For we believe that they are united without medium or interval, 
and that they are incapable of separation from each other: the whole Father embosoming 
the Son; and the whole Son attached to and eternally reposing in the Father’s bosom. Believ- 
ing, therefore, in the altogether perfect and most holy Trinity, and asserting that the Father 
is God, and that the Son also is God, we do not acknowledge two Gods, but one only, on 
account of the majesty of the Deity, and the perfect blending and union of the kingdoms: 
the Father ruling over all things universally, and even over the Son himself; the Son being 
subject to the Father, but except him, ruling over all things which were made after him and 
by him; and by the Father’s will bestowing abundantly on the saints the grace of the Holy 
Spirit. For the Sacred Oracles inform us that in this consists the character of the sovereignty 
which Christ exercises. 

‘We have been compelled, since the publication of our former epitome, to give this more 
ample exposition of the creed; not in order to gratify a vain ambition, but to clear ourselves 
from all strange suspicion respecting our faith which may exist among those who are ignorant 
of our real sentiments. And that the inhabitants of the West may both be aware of the 
shameless misrepresentations of the heterodox party; and also know the ecclesiastical 
opinion of the Eastern bishops concerning Christ, confirmed by the unwrested testimony 
of the divinely- inspired Scriptures, among all those of unperverted minds.’ 


Of the Council at Sardica. 


Chapter XX . — Of the Council at Sardica. 

The Western prelates on account of their being of another language, and not understand- 
ing this exposition, would not admit of it; saying that the Nicene Creed was sufficient, and 
that they would not waste time on anything beyond it. But when the emperor had again 
written to insist on the restoration to Paul and Athanasius of their respective sees, but 
without effect in consequence of the continual agitation of the people — these two bishops 
demanded that another Synod should be convened, so that their case, as well as other 
questions in relation to the faith might be settled by an ecumenical council, for they made 
it obvious that their deposition arose from no other cause than that the faith might be the 
more easily perverted. Another general council was therefore summoned to meet at 
Sardica, — a city of Illyricum, — by the joint authority of the two emperors; the one requesting 
by letter that it might be so, and the other, of the East, readily acquiescing in it. It was the 
eleventh year after the death of the father of the two Augusti, during the consulship of 


Rufinus and Eusebius, that the Synod of Sardica met. According to the statement of 
Athanasius about 300 bishops from the western parts of the empire were present; but 
Sabinus says there came only seventy from the eastern parts, among whom was Ischyras of 


Mareotes, who had been ordained bishop of that country by those who deposed Athanas- 
ius. Of the rest, some pretended infirmity of body; others complained of the shortness of 
the notice given, casting the blame of it on Julius, bishop of Rome, although a year and a 
half had elapsed from the time of its having been summoned: in which interval Athanasius 
remained at Rome awaiting the assembling of the Synod. When at last they were convened 
at Sardica, the Eastern prelates refused either to meet or to enter into any conference with 
those of the West, unless they first excluded Athanasius and Paul from the convention. But 
as Protogenes, bishop of Sardica, and Hosius, bishop of Cordova, a city in Spain, would by 
no means permit them to be absent, the Eastern bishops immediately withdrew, and returning 
to Philippopolis in Thrace, held a separate council, wherein they openly anathematized the 
term homoousios; and having introduced the Anomoian 309 opinion into their epistles, they 
sent them in all directions. On the other hand those who remained at Sardica, condemning 

305 Cf. Sozom. III. 11; Theodoret, H. E. II. 7; also Hefele, Hist, of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 87-176. 

306 347 a.d. 

307 Athanasius’ statement is that those who were present at the Council of Sardica, together with those who 
afterwards subscribed the Synodical Epistle sent to them and those who before the council had written in his 
behalf out of Phrygia, Asia, andlsauria, were in all about three hundred and forty. So in his Apol. contra Arianos, 
c. 50. In his Ep. ad Solitar. c. 15, he gives the number of those who met at Sardica as about one hundred and 
seventy, — no more. 

308 Cf. I. 27. 

309 avopoiou, ‘different,’ ‘unlike.’ 


Of the Council at Sardica. 

in the first place their departure, afterwards divested the accusers of Athanasius of their 
dignity; then confirming the Nicene Creed, and rejecting the term anomoion, they more 
distinctly recognized the doctrine of consubstantiality, which they also inserted in epistles 
addressed to all the churches. Both parties believed they had acted rightly: those of the East, 
because the Western bishops had countenanced those whom they had deposed; and these 
again, in consequence not only of the retirement of those who had deposed them before the 
matter had been examined into, but also because they themselves were the defenders of the 
Nicene faith, which the other party had dared to adulterate. They therefore restored to Paul 
and Athanasius their sees, and also Marcellus of Ancyra in Lesser Galatia, who had been 

o 1 o 

deposed long before, as we have stated in the former book. At that time indeed he exerted 

himself to the utmost to procure the revocation of the sentence pronounced against him, 
declaring that his being suspected of entertaining the error of Paul of Samosata arose from 
a misunderstanding of some expressions in his book. It must, however, be noticed that Eu- 


sebius Pamphilus wrote three entire books against Marcellus, in which he quotes that 
author’s own words to prove that he asserts with Sabellius the Libyan, and Paul of Samosata, 
that the Lord [Jesus] was a mere man. 

310 1. 36. 

311 There are two works of Eusebius extant against Marcellus. The one described here is de Ecclesiastica 
Theologia adversus Marcellum, in three books; the other is entitled contra Marcellum, and consists of two books. 
As there is no mention of the latter, it is doubtful whether Socrates had ever seen them. At the end of the second 
book, Eusebius asserts that he had written at the request of the bishops who had excommunicated Marcellus. 


Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus. 

Chapter XXL — Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus. 

But since some have attempted to stigmatize even Eusebius Pamphilus himself as having 
favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here to make a few remarks 
respecting him. In the first place then he was both present at the council of Nicaea, which 
defined the doctrine of the homoousion and gave his assent to what was there determined. 

o in 

And in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he expressed himself in these words: 
‘The emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had rendered them united in judgment on 
those points on which they were previously at variance; so that they were quite agreed at 
Nicaea in matters of faith.’ Since therefore Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene Synod, says 
that all differences were removed, and that all came to unity of sentiment, what ground is 
there for assuming that he was himself an Arian? The Arians are also certainly deceived in 
supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps say that in his dis- 
courses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his frequently saying 


through Christ, to whom we should answer that ecclesiastical writers often use this mode 
of expression and others of a similar kind denoting the economy of our Saviour’s humanity: 
and that before all these the apostle 314 made use of such expressions, and never has been 
accounted a teacher of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has dared to say that 
the Son is a creature, as one of the others, observe what Eusebius says on this subject, in his 


first book against Marcellus: 

‘He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the only-begotten Son of God; 
whence any one could justly censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature 
made of nothing, like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son? and how 
could he be God’s only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature as the other 
creatures . . . and were he one of the many created things, seeing that he, like them, would in 
that case be partaker of a creation from nothing? But the Sacred Scriptures do not thus in- 
struct us.’ He again adds a little afterwards: ‘Whoever then defines the Son as made of things 
that are not, and as a creature produced from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he 
concedes the name of Son, he denies him to be a Son in reality. For he that is made of 
nothing, cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things which have been 
made; but the true Son of God, forasmuch as he is begotten of the Father, is properly denom- 
inated the only-begotten and beloved of the Father. For this reason also, he himself is God; 
for what can the offspring of God be, but the perfect resemblance of him who begot him? 

312 Life of Const. III. 13. 

313 Eusebius was accustomed to end his sermons with the formula ‘Glory be to the unborn God through his 
only-begotten Son,’ &c. So also at the end of his contra Sabell. I. 

314 1 Cor. i.; Eph. iii. 9. 

315 De Eccl. Theol.l. 8, 9, and 10. 


Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus. 

A sovereign indeed builds a city, but does not beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build 
one. An artificer, also, may be called the framer, but not the father of his work; while he 
could by no means be styled the framer of him whom he had begotten. So also the God of 
the Universe is the Father of the Son; but might be fitly termed the Framer and Maker of 


the world. And although it is once said in Scripture, “The Lord created me the beginning 

of his ways on account of his works,” yet it becomes us to consider the import of this phrase, 
which I shall hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a single passage to 
jeopardize the most important doctrine of the church.’ 

These and many other such expressions Eusebius Pamphilus has given utterance to in 


the first book against Marcellus; and in his third book, declaring in what sense the term 
creature is to be taken, he says: 

‘Accordingly, these things being thus established, it follows that in the same sense as 
that which preceded, the words, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, on account 
of his works,” must have been spoken. For although he says that he was created, it is not as 
if he should say that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor that he himself also 
was made of nothing like the rest of the creatures, which some have erroneously supposed; 
but as subsisting, living, pre-existing, and being before the constitution of the whole world; 
and having been appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and Father: the word created 

o i o 

being here used instead of ordained or constituted. Certainly the apostle expressly called 

the rulers and governors among men creature, when he said, “Submit yourselves to every 
human creature for the Lord’s sake; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as those 
sent by him.” The prophet also when he says, “Prepare, Israel, to invoke thy God. For 
behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ unto 
men”: . . .has not used the word “he who creates” in the sense of makes out of nothing. For 
God did not then create the Spirit, when he declared his Christ to all men, since There 
is nothing new under the sun”; but the Spirit existed, and had being previously: but he was 
sent at what time the apostles were gathered together, when like thunder “There came a 

09 l 

sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind; and they were filled with the Holy Spirit.” 
And thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God, in accordance with that prophecy 
which says, “Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the Spirit, and announces his 


Prov. viii. 22. 


DeEccl. Theol.lll. 2. 


1 Pet. ii. 13. 


Amos iv. 12, 13 (LXX) 


Eccl. i. 9. 


Acts ii. 2, 4. 


Amos iv. 13. 


Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus. 

Christ unto men”: the word “creates” being used instead of “sends down,” or appoints; and 
thunder in another figure implying the preaching of the Gospel. Again he that says, “Create 
in me a clean heart, O God,” said not this as if he had no heart; but prayed that his mind 

'l') A 

might be purified. Thus also it is said, “That he might create the two into one new man,” 
instead of unite. Consider also whether this passage is not of the same kind, “Clothe 
yourselves with the new man, which is created according to God”; and this, “If, therefore, 
any one be in Christ, he is a new creature”; and whatever other expressions of a similar 
nature any one may find who shall carefully search the divinely inspired Scripture. Wherefore, 
one should not be surprised if in this passage, “The Lord created me the beginning of his 
ways,” the term “created” is used metaphorically, instead of “appointed” or constituted.’ 

Such words Eusebius uses in his work against Marcellus; we have quoted them on account 
of those who have slanderously attempted to traduce and criminate him. Neither can they 
prove that Eusebius attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they 
may find him often using the expressions by accommodation; and especially so, because he 
was an emulator and admirer of the works of Origen, in which those who are able to com- 
prehend the depth of Origen’s writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son 
was begotten of the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, in order to refute 
those who have misrepresented Eusebius. 

323 Psalm li. 10 (LXX). 

324 Eph. ii. 15. 

325 Eph. iv. 24. 

2 Cor. v. 17. 



The Council ofSardica restores Paul and Athanasius to their Sees; and on... 

Chapter XXII.— The Council ofSardica restores Paul and Athanasius to their Sees; and on 
the Eastern Emperor’s Refusal to admit them, the Emperor of the West threatens him 
with War. 

Those convened at Sardica, as well as those who had formed a separate council at Phil- 
ippopolis in Thrace, having severally performed what they deemed requisite, returned to 
their respective cities. From that time, therefore, the Western church was severed from the 
Eastern; and the boundary of communion between them was the mountain called 
Soucis, which divides the Illyrians from the Thracians. As far as this mountain there was 
indiscriminate communion, although there was a difference of faith; but beyond it they did 
not commune with one another. Such was the perturbed condition of the churches at that 
period. Soon after these transactions, the emperor of the Western parts informed his 
brother Constantius of what had taken place at Sardica, and begged him to restore Paul and 
Athanasius to their sees. But as Constantius delayed to carry this matter into effect, the 
emperor of the West again wrote to him, giving him the choice either of re-establishing Paul 
and Athanasius in their former dignity, and restoring their churches to them; or, on his 
failing to do this, of regarding him as his enemy, and immediately expecting war. The letter 
which he addressed to his brother was as follows: 

‘Athanasius and Paul are here with me; and I am quite satisfied after investigation, that 
they are persecuted for the sake of piety. If, therefore, you will pledge yourself to reinstate 
them in their sees, and to punish those who have so unjustly injured them, I will send them 
to you; but should you refuse to do this, be assured, that I will myself come thither, and restore 
them to their own sees, in spite of your opposition.’ 

327 This separation was only temporary and must be distinguished from the great schism, which grew slowly 
and culminated with the adoption of the expression filioque’ into the Apostles’ Creed by the Western church 
in the eleventh century. On the various degrees of unity and communion recognized in the ancient church, see 
Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. Bk. XVI. 1. 

328 Tkjouku;. 


Constantins , being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by... 

Chapter XXIII. — Constantius, being Afraid of his Brother’s Threats, recalls Athanasius by 

Letter, and sends him to Alexandria. 

On receiving this communication the emperor of the East fell into perplexity; and im- 
mediately sending for the greater part of the Eastern bishops, he acquainted them with the 
choice his brother had submitted to him, and asked what ought to be done. They replied, 
it was better to concede the churches to Athanasius, than to undertake a civil war. Accordingly 
the emperor, urged by necessity, summoned Athanasius and his friends to his presence. 
Meanwhile the emperor of the West sent Paul to Constantinople, with two bishops and 
other honorable attendance, having fortified him with his own letters, together with those 
of the Synod. But while Athanasius was still apprehensive, and hesitated to go to him, — for 
he dreaded the treachery of his calumniators, — the emperor of the East not once only, but 
even a second and a third time, invited him to come to him; this is evident from his letters, 
which, translated from the Latin tongue, are as follows: 


Epistle of Constantius to Athanasius. 

Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius the bishop. 

Our compassionate clemency cannot permit you to be any longer tossed and disquieted 
as it were by the boisterous waves of the sea. Our unwearied piety has not been unmindful 
of you driven from your native home, despoiled of your property, and wandering in pathless 
solitudes. And although I have too long deferred acquainting you by letter with the purpose 
of my mind, expecting your coming to us of your own accord to seek a remedy for your 
troubles; yet since fear perhaps has hindered the execution of your wishes, we therefore have 
sent to your reverence letters full of indulgence, in order that you may fearlessly hasten to 
appear in our presence, whereby after experiencing our benevolence, you may attain your 
desire, and be re-established in your proper position. For this reason I have requested my 
Lord and brother Constans Victor Augustus to grant you permission to come, to the end 
that by the consent of us both you may be restored to your country, having this assurance 
of our favor. 

Another Epistle to Athanasius. 

Constantius Victor Augustus to the bishop Athanasius. 

Although we have abundantly intimated in a former letter that you might confidently 

o on 

come to our court, as we are extremely anxious to reinstate you in your proper place, yet 

329 Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 51. 

330 Kopurarov = Lat. comitatus; by analogy of the New Test, words Krjvaoq KouartoSta, aJteKouAdrtop , &c., 
and frequently in Byzantine Greek Kopijltveupia aoucppaytov , &c. 


Constantins , being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by... 

we have again addressed this letter to your reverence. We therefore urge you, without any 
distrust or apprehension, to take a public vehicle and hasten to us, in order that you may 
be able to obtain what you desire. 

Another Epistle to Athanasius. 

Constantius Victor Augustus to the bishop Athanasius. 

While we were residing at Edessa, where your presbyters were present, it pleased us to 
send one of them to you, for the purpose of hastening your arrival at our court, in order 
that after having been introduced to our presence, you might forthwith proceed to Alexandria. 
But inasmuch as a considerable time has elapsed since you received our letter, and yet have 
not come, we now therefore hasten to remind you to speedily present yourself before us, 
that so you may be able to return to your country, and obtain your desire. For the more 
ample assurance of our intention, we have despatched to you Achetas the deacon, from 
whom you will learn both our mind in regard to you, and that you will be able to secure 
what you wish; viz., our readiness to facilitate the objects you have in view. 

When Athanasius had received these letters at Aquileia, — for there he abode after his 
departure from Sardica, — he immediately hastened to Rome; and having shown these 
communications to Julius the bishop, he caused the greatest joy in the Roman Church. For 
it seemed as if the emperor of the East also had recognized their faith, since he had recalled 
Athanasius. Julius then wrote to the clergy and laity of Alexandria on behalf of Athanasius 
as follows: 

O O 1 

Epistle of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to those at Alexandria. 

Julius, the bishop, to the presbyters, deacons, and people inhabiting Alexandria, brethren 
beloved, salutations in the Lord. 

I also rejoice with you, beloved brethren, because you at length see before your eyes the 
fruit of your faith. For that this is really so, any one may perceive in reference to my brother 
and fellow-prelate Athanasius, whom God has restored to you, both on account of his purity 
of life, and in answer to your prayers. From this it is evident that your supplications to God 
have unceasingly been offered pure and abounding with love; for mindful of the divine 
promises and of the charity connected with them, which ye learned from the instruction of 
my brother, ye knew assuredly, and according to the sound faith which is in you clearly 
foresaw that your bishop would not be separated from you for ever, whom ye had in your 
devout hearts as though he were ever present. Wherefore it is unnecessary for me to use 
many words in addressing you, for your faith has already anticipated whatever I could have 

331 Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 52. 


Constantins , being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by... 

said; and the common prayer of you all has been fulfilled according to the grace of Christ. 
I therefore rejoice with you, and repeat that ye have preserved your souls invincible in the 
faith. And with my brother Athanasius I rejoice equally; because, while suffering many af- 
flictions, he has never been unmindful of your love and desire; for although he seemed to 
be withdrawn from you in person for a season, yet was he always present with you in spirit. 
Moreover, I am convinced, beloved, that every trial which he has endured has not been in- 
glorious; since both your faith and his has thus been tested and made manifest to all. But 
had not so many troubles happened to him, who would have believed, either that you had 
so great esteem and love for this eminent prelate, or that he was endowed with such distin- 
guished virtues, on account of which also he will by no means be defrauded of his hope in 
the heavens? He has accordingly obtained a testimony of confession in every way glorious 
both in the present age and in that which is to come. For having suffered so many and diver- 
sified trials both by land and by sea, he has trampled on every machination of the Arian 
heresy; and though often exposed to danger in consequence of envy, he despised death, being 
protected by Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, ever trusting that he should not only 
escape the plots [of his adversaries], but also be restored for your consolation, and bring 
back to you at the same time greater trophies from your own conscience. By which means 
he has been made known even to the ends of the whole earth as glorious, his worth having 
been approved by the purity of his life, the firmness of his purpose, and his steadfastness in 
the heavenly doctrine, all being attested by your unchanging esteem and love. He therefore 
returns to you, more illustrious now than when he departed from you. For if the fire tries 
the precious metals (I speak of gold and silver) for purification, what can be said of so excel- 
lent a man proportionate to his worth, who after having overcome the fire of so many 
calamities and dangers, is now restored to you, being declared innocent not only by us, but 
also by the whole Synod? Receive therefore with godly honor and joy, beloved brethren, 
your bishop Athanasius, together with those who have been his companions in tribulation. 
And rejoice in having attained the object of your prayers, you who have supplied with meat 
and drink, by your supporting letters, your pastor hungering and thirsting, so to speak, for 
your spiritual welfare. And in fact ye were a comfort to him while he was sojourning in a 
strange land; and ye cherished him in your most faithful affections when he was plotted 
against and persecuted. As for me, it makes me happy even to picture to myself in imagination 
the delight of each one of you at his return, the pious greetings of the populace, the glorious 
festivity of those assembled to meet him, and indeed what the entire aspect of that day will 
be when my brother shall be brought back to you again; when past troubles will be at an 
end, and his prized and longed-for return will unite all hearts in the warmest expression of 
joy. This feeling will in a very high degree extend to us, who regard it as a token of divine 
favor that we should have been privileged to become acquainted with so eminent a person. 
It becomes us therefore to close this epistle with prayer. May God Almighty and his Son 


Constantins, being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by... 

our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ afford you this grace continually, thus rewarding the 
admirable faith which ye have manifested in reference to your bishop by an illustrious 
testimony: that the things most excellent which ‘Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither 
have entered into the heart of man; even the things which God has prepared for them that 


love him,’ may await you and yours in the world to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ, 

through whom be glory to God Almighty for ever and ever, Amen. I pray that ye may be 
strengthened, beloved brethren. 

Athanasius, relying on these letters, arrived at the East. The Emperor Constantius did 
not at that time receive him with hostility of feeling; nevertheless at the instigation of the 
Arians he endeavored to circumvent him, and addressed him in these words: ‘You have 
been reinstated in your see in accordance with the decree of the Synod, and with our consent. 
But inasmuch as some of the people of Alexandria refuse to hold communion with you, 
permit them to have one church in the city.’ To this demand Athanasius promptly replied: 
‘You have the power, my sovereign, both to order, and to carry into effect, whatever you 
may please. I also, therefore, would beg you to grant me a favor.’ The emperor having 
readily promised to acquiesce, Athanasius immediately added, that he desired the same 
thing might be conceded to him, which the emperor had sought from him, viz.: that in every 
city one church should be assigned to those who might refuse to hold communion with the 
Arians. The Arians perceiving the purpose of Athanasius to be inimical to their interests, 
said that this affair might be postponed to another time: but they suffered the emperor to 
act as he pleased. He therefore restored to Athanasius, Paul, and Marcellus their respective 
sees; as also to Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and Lucius of Adrianople. For these, too, had been 
received by the Council of Sardica: Asclepas, because he showed records from which it ap- 
peared that Eusebius Pamphilus, in conjunction with several others, after having investigated 
his case, had restored him to his former rank; and Lucius, because his accusers had fled. 
Hereupon the emperor’s edicts were despatched to their respective cities, enjoining the in- 
habitants to receive them readily. At Ancyra indeed, when Basil was ejected, and Marcellus 
was introduced in his stead, there was a considerable tumult made, which afforded his en- 
emies an occasion of calumniating him: but the people of Gaza willingly received Asclepas. 
Macedonius at Constantinople, for a short time gave place to Paul, convening assemblies 
by himself separately, in a separate church in that city. Moreover the emperor wrote on behalf 
of Athanasius to the bishops, clergy, and laity, in regard to receiving him cheerfully: and at 
the same time he ordered by other letters, that whatever had been enacted against him in 
the judicial courts should be abrogated. The communications respecting both these matters 
were as follows: 

332 1 Cor. ii. 9 


Constantins , being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by... 

o o o 

The Epistle of Constantins in Behalf of Athanasius. 

Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and presbyters of the Catholic 

The most reverend bishop Athanasius has not been forsaken by the grace of God. But 
although he was for a short time subjected to trial according to men, yet has he obtained 
from an omniscient Providence the exoneration which was due to him; having been restored 
by the will of God, and our decision, both to his country and to the church over which by 
divine permission he presided. It was therefore suitable that what is in accordance with this 
should be duly attended to by our clemency: so that all things which have been heretofore 
determined against those who held communion with him should now be rescinded; that all 
suspicion against him should henceforward cease; and that the immunity which those cler- 
gymen who are with him formerly enjoyed, should be, as it is meet, confirmed to them. 
Moreover, we thought it just to add this to our grace toward him, that the whole ecclesiast- 
ical body should understand that protection is extended to all who have adhered to him, 
whether bishops or other clergymen: and union with him shall be a sufficient evidence of 
each person’s right intention. Wherefore we have ordered, according to the similitude of 
the previous providence, that as many as have the wisdom to enroll themselves with the 
sounder judgment and party and to choose his communion, shall enjoy that indulgence 
which we have now granted in accordance with the will of God. 


Another Epistle sent to the Alexandrians. 

Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus, to the people of the Catholic Church at Alexan- 

Setting before us as an aim your good order in all respects, and knowing that you have 
long since been bereft of episcopal oversight, we thought it just to send back to you again 
Athanasius your bishop, a man known to all by the rectitude and sanctity of his life and 
manners. Having received him with your usual and becoming courtesy, and constituted 
him the assistant of your prayers to God, exert yourselves to maintain at all times, according 
to the ecclesiastical canon, harmony and peace, which will be alike honorable to yourselves, 
and grateful to us. For it is unreasonable that any dissension or faction should be excited 
among you, hostile to the prosperity of our times; and we trust that such a misfortune will 
be wholly removed from you. We exhort you, therefore, to assiduously persevere in your 
accustomed devotions, by his assistance, as we before said: so that when this resolution of 
yours shall become generally known, entering into the prayers of all, even the pagans, who 
are still enslaved in the ignorance of idolatrous worship, may hasten to seek the knowledge 

333 Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 54. 

334 Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 55. 


Constantins , being Afraid of his Brother's Threats, recalls Athanasius by... 

of our sacred religion, most beloved Alexandrians. Again, therefore, we exhort you to give 
heed to these things: heartily welcome your bishop, as one appointed you by the will of God 
and our decree; and esteem him worthy of being embraced with all the affections of your 
souls. For this becomes you, and is consistent with our clemency. But in order to check all 
tendency to seditions and tumult in persons of a factious disposition, orders have been issued 
to our judges to give up to the severity of the laws all whom they may discover to be seditious. 
Having regard, therefore, to our determination and God’s, as well as to the anxiety we 
feel to secure harmony among you, and remembering also the punishment that will be in- 
flicted on the disorderly, make it your especial care to act agreeably to the sanctions of our 
sacred religion, with all reverence honoring your bishop; that so in conjunction with him 
you may present your supplications to the God and Father of the universe, both for 
yourselves, and for the orderly government of the whole human race. 

An Epistle respecting the Rescinding of the Enactments against Athanasius. 

Victor Constantius Augustus to Nestorius, and in the same terms to the governors of 
Augustamnica, Thebais, and Libya. 

If it be found that at any time previously any enactment has been passed prejudicial and 
derogatory to those who hold communion with Athanasius the bishop, our pleasure is that 
it should now be wholly abrogated; and that his clergy should again enjoy the same immunity 
which was granted to them formerly. We enjoin strict obedience to this command, to the 
intent that since the bishop Athanasius has been restored to his church, all who hold com- 
munion with him may possess the same privileges as they had before, and such as other 
ecclesiastics now enjoy: that so their affairs being happily arranged, they also may share in 
the general prosperity. 

335 toO Kpeirovoc; cf. I. 7, and note. 


Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem on his Return to Alexandria, is received... 

Chapter XXIV. — Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem on his Return to Alexandria, is re- 
ceived into Communion by Maximus: and a Synod of Bishops, convened in that City, 
confirms the Nicene Creed. 

Athanasius the bishop being fortified with such letters as these, passed through Syria, 
and came into Palestine. On arriving at Jerusalem he acquainted Maximus the bishop both 
with what had been done in the Council of Sardica, and also that the Emperor Constantius 
had confirmed its decision: he then proposed that a Synod of the bishops there should be 

2 2 /r 

held. Maximus, therefore, without delay sent for certain of the bishops of Syria and 
Palestine, and having assembled a council, he restored Athanasius to communion, and to 
his former dignity. After which the Synod communicated by letter to the Alexandrians, 
and to all the bishops of Egypt and Libya, what had been determined respecting Athanasius. 
Whereupon the adversaries of Athanasius exceedingly derided Maximus, because having 
before assisted in his deposition, he had suddenly changed his mind, and as if nothing had 
previously taken place, had voted for his restoration to communion and rank. When Ursacius 
and Valens, who had been fiery partisans of Arianism, ascertained these things, condemning 
their former zeal, they proceeded to Rome, where they presented their recantation to Julius 
the bishop, and gave their assent to the doctrine of consubstantiality: they also wrote to 
Athanasius, and expressed their readiness to hold communion with him in future. Thus 
Ursacius and Valens were at that time subdued by the good fortune of Athanasius and in- 
duced to recognize the orthodox faith. Athanasius passed through Pelusium on his way to 
Alexandria, and admonished the inhabitants of every city to beware of the Arians, and to 
receive those only that professed the Homoousian faith. In some of the churches also he 

performed ordination; which afforded another ground of accusation against him, because 

2 2 0 

of his undertaking to ordain in the dioceses of others. Such was the progress of affairs at 
that period in reference to Athanasius. 

336 The bishop of Jerusalem was under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan bishop of Caesarea, and according 
to later usage and canon, had no right to call a synod without the permission of the metropolitan. Evidently 
usage had not yet become fixed into uniformity in this respect. 

337 Cf. Athan, Apol. c. Arian. 57. 

338 Cf. Apost. Cann. XXXV. ‘Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his limits, in cities and places not subject 
to him.’ It follows, therefore, that the whole of Egypt was not under the bishop of Alexandria; otherwise no such 
charge as is here mentioned could have been made against Athanasius. That these ordinations were made in 
Egypt is evident from the mention of Pelusium, which Athanasius had already passed through. 


Of the Usurpers Magnentius and Vetranio. 

Chapter XXV. — Of the Usurpers Magnentius and Vetranio. 

About this time an extraordinary commotion shook the whole state, of the principal 
heads, of which we shall give a brief account, deeming it necessary not to pass over them 
altogether. We mentioned in our first book, that after the death of the founder of Con- 
stantinople, his three sons succeeded him in the empire: it must now be also stated, that a 
kinsman of theirs, Dalmatius, so named from his father, shared with them the imperial au- 
thority. This person after being associated with them in the sovereignty for a very little while, 
the soldiers put to death , 340 Constantius having neither commanded his destruction, nor 
forbidden it. The manner in which Constantine the younger was also killed by the soldiers, 
on his invading that division of the empire which belonged to his brother, has already been 
recorded 341 more than once. After his death, the Persian war was raised against the Romans, 
in which Constantius did nothing prosperously: for in a battle fought by night on the fron- 
tiers of both parties, the Persians had to some slight extent the advantage. And this at a time 
when the affairs of the Christians became no less unsettled, there being great disturbance 
throughout the churches on account of Athanasius, and the term homoousion. Affairs having 
reached this pass, there sprang up a tyrant in the western parts called Magnentius, who 
by treachery slew Constans, the emperor of the western division of the empire, at that time 
residing in the Gauls. This being done, a furious civil war arose, and Magnentius made 
himself master of all Italy, reduced Africa and Libya under his power, and even obtained 
possession of the Gauls. But at the city of Sirmium in Illyricum, the military set up another 
tyrant whose name was Vetranio; while a fresh trouble threw Rome itself into commotion. 

For there was a nephew of Constantine’s, Nepotian by name, who, supported by a body of 
gladiators, there assumed the sovereignty. He was, however, slain by some of the officers of 
Magnentius, who himself invaded the western provinces, and spread desolation in every 

339 1. 38. 

340 The same account is given by Eunap. X. 9, and by Zosimus, II. 40. 

341 Ch. 5, above. 

342 Magnentius was governor of the provinces of Rhoetia, and assassinated Constans, as above. Cf. Zosimus, 
II. 43. 

343 This whole affair is treated extensively in Zosimus, II. 43-48. 


After the Death of Constans, the Western Emperor, Paul and Athanasius are... 

Chapter XXVI. — After the Death of Constans, the Western Emperor, Paul and Athanasius 
are again ejected from their Sees: the Former on his Way into Exile is slain; but the Latter 
escapes by Flight. 

The conflux of these disastrous events occurred during a short space of time; for they 
happened in the fourth year after the council at Sardica, during the consulate of Sergius and 
Nigrinian . 344 When these circumstances were published, the entire sovereignty of the empire 
seemed to devolve on Constantius alone, who, being accordingly proclaimed in the East 
sole Autocrat, made the most vigorous preparations against the usurpers. Hereupon the 
adversaries of Athanasius, thinking a favorable crisis had arisen, again framed the most 
calumnious charges against him, before his arrival at Alexandria; assuring the Emperor 
Constantius that he was subverting all Egypt and Libya. And his having undertaken to ordain 
out of the limits of his own diocese, tended not a little to accredit the accusations against 
him. Meanwhile in this conjuncture, Athanasius entered Alexandria; and having convened 
a council of the bishops in Egypt, they confirmed by their unanimous vote, what had been 
determined in the Synod at Sardica, and that assembled at Jerusalem by Maximus. But the 
emperor, who had been long since imbued with Arian doctrine, reversed all the indulgent 
proceedings he had so recently resolved on. And first of all he ordered that Paul, bishop of 
Constantinople, should be sent into exile; whom those who conducted strangled, at Cucusus 
in Cappadocia. Marcellus was also ejected, and Basil again made ruler of the church at Ancyra. 
Lucius of Adrianople, being loaded with chains, died in prison. The reports which were 
made concerning Athanasius so wrought on the emperor’s mind, that in an ungovernable 
fury he commanded him to be put to death wherever he might be found: he moreover in- 
cluded Theodulus and Olympius, who presided over churches in Thrace, in the same pro- 
scription. Athanasius, however, was not ignorant of the intentions of the emperor; but 
learning of them he once more had recourse to flight, and so escaped the emperor’s menaces. 
The Arians denounced this retreat as criminal, particularly Narcissus, bishop of Neronias 
in Cilicia, George of Laodicaea, and Leontius who then had the oversight of the church at 
Antioch. This last person, when a presbyter, had been divested of his rank , 345 because in 

344 350 a.d. 

345 Cf. Apost. Cann. XXII. and XXIII.; according to these any cleric was to be deposed if found guilty of such 
a crime. The Council of Nicsea also passed a canon on the subject which is as follows: ‘If a man has been mutilated 
by physicians during sickness, or by barbarians, he may remain among the clergy; but if a man in good health 
has mutilated himself, he must resign his post after the matter has been proved among the clergy, and in future 
no one who has thus acted should be ordained. But as it is evident that what has just been said only concerns 
those who have thus acted with intention, and have dared to mutilate themselves, those who have been made 
eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters will be allowed, conformably to the canon, to remain among the 
clergy, if in other respects they are worthy.’ Cation I. See Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Vol. I. p. 375, 376. 


After the Death of Constans, the Western Emperor, Paul and Athanasius are... 

order to remove all suspicion of illicit intercourse with a woman named Eustolium, with 
whom he spent a considerable portion of his time, he had castrated himself and thencefor- 
ward lived more unreservedly with her, on the ground that there could be no longer any 
ground for evil surmises. Afterwards however, at the earnest desire of the Emperor Constan- 
tius, he was created bishop of the church at Antioch, after Stephen, the successor of Placitus. 
So much respecting this. 


Macedonius having possessed himself of the See of Constantinople inflicts... 

Chapter XXVII.— Macedonius having possessed himself of the See of Constantinople inflicts 

much Injury on those who differ from him. 

At that time Paul having been removed in the manner described, Macedonius became 
ruler of the churches in Constantinople; who, acquiring very great ascendancy over the 
emperor, stirred up a war among Christians, of a no less grievous kind than that which the 
usurpers themselves were waging. For having prevailed on his sovereign to co-operate with 
him in devastating the churches, he procured that whatever pernicious measures he determ- 
ined to pursue should be ratified by law. And on this account throughout the several cities 
an edict was proclaimed, and a military force appointed to carry the imperial decrees into 
effect. Accordingly those who acknowledged the doctrine of consubstantiality were expelled 
not only from the churches, but also from the cities. Now at first they were satisfied with 
expulsion; but as the evil grew they resorted to the worse extremity of inducing compulsory 
communion with them, caring but little for such a desecration of the churches. Their violence 
indeed was scarcely less than that of those who had formerly obliged the Christians to 
worship idols; for they applied all kinds of scourgings, a variety of tortures, and confiscation 
of property. Many were punished with exile; some died under the torture; and others were 
put to death while they were being led into exile. These atrocities were exercised throughout 
all the eastern cities, but especially at Constantinople; the internal strife which was but slight 
before was thus savagely increased by Macedonius, as soon as he obtained the bishopric. 
The cities of Greece, however, and Illyricum, with those of the western parts, still enjoyed 
tranquillity; inasmuch as they preserved harmony among themselves, and continued to 
adhere to the rule of faith promulgated by the council of Nicaea. 


Athanasius' Account of the Deeds of Violence committed at Alexandria by... 

Chapter XXVIII .—Athanasius’ Account of the Deeds of Violence committed at Alexandria 

by George the Arian. 

What cruelties George perpetrated at Alexandria at the same time may be learned from 
the narration of Athanasius, who both suffered in and witnessed the occurrences. In his 
‘Apology for his flight ,’ 346 speaking of these transactions, he thus expresses himself: 

‘Moreover, they came to Alexandria, again seeking to destroy me: and on this occasion 
their proceedings were worse than before; for the soldiery having suddenly surrounded the 
church, there arose the din of war, instead of the voice of prayer. Afterwards, on his arrival 
during Lent, George, sent from Cappadocia, added to the evil which he was instructed 
to work. When Easter-week was passed, the virgins were cast into prison, the bishops 
were led in chains by the military, and the dwellings even of orphans and widows were for- 
cibly entered and their provisions pillaged. Christians were assassinated by night; houses 
were sealed ; 349 and the relatives of the clergy were endangered on their account. Even these 
outrages were dreadful; but those that followed were still more so. For in the week after the 
holy Pentecost, the people, having fasted, went forth to the cemetery to pray, because all 
were averse to communion with George: that wickedest of men being informed of this, in- 
stigated against them Sebastian, an officer who was a Manichaean. He, accordingly, at the 
head of a body of troops armed with drawn swords, bows, and darts, marched out to attack 
the people, although it was the Lord’s day: finding but few at prayers, — as the most part had 
retired because of the lateness of the hour, — he performed such exploits as might be expected 
from them. Having kindled a fire, he set the virgins near it, in order to compel them to say 
that they were of the Arian faith: but seeing they stood their ground and despised the fire, 
he then stripped them, and so beat them on the face, that for a long time afterwards they 
could scarcely be recognized. Seizing also about forty men, he flogged them in an extraordin- 
ary manner: for he so lacerated their backs with rods fresh cut from the palm-tree, which 
still had their thorns on, that some were obliged to resort repeatedly to surgical aid in order 
to have the thorns extracted from their flesh, and others, unable to bear the agony, died 

346 Athan. Apol. de Fuga, 6. 

347 TcaaapaKoarri , lit. = ‘forty days’ fast,’ formed by mistaken analogy to Jtevrr|Koarri 

348 Suspending, i.e., all violence during the period of festivity attending the observance of Easter. 

349 Houses are often sealed by state and municipal officials in the East, even at the present time, when their 
contents are to be confiscated, or for any other reason an inventory is to be made by the authorities. The sealing 
consists in fastening and securing the locks and bolts and attaching the impression of the official seal to some 
sealing-wax which is put over them. In this case the object of the sealing was apparently the confiscation of the 



Athanasius' Account of the Deeds of Violence committed at Alexandria by... 


under its infliction. All the survivors with one virgin they banished to the Great Oasis. 
The bodies of the dead they did not so much as give up to their relatives, but denying them 
the rites of sepulture they concealed them as they thought fit, that the evidences of their 
cruelty might not appear. They did this acting as madmen. For while the friends of the de- 
ceased rejoiced on account of their confession, but mourned because their bodies were un- 
interred, the impious inhumanity of these acts was sounded abroad the more conspicuously. 
For soon after this they sent into exile out of Egypt and the two Libyas the following bishops: 
Ammonius, Thmu'is, Cams, Philo, Hermes, Pliny, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agatho, 
Anagamphus, Mark, Ammonius, another Mark, Dracontius, Adelphius, and Athenodorus; 
and the presbyters Hierax and Discorus. And so harshly did they treat them in conducting 
them, that some expired while on their journey, and others in the place of banishment. In 
this way they got rid of more than thirty bishops, for the anxious desire of the Arians, like 
Ahab’s, was to exterminate the truth if possible.’ 

Such are the words of Athanasius in regard to the atrocities perpetrated by George at 
Alexandria. The emperor meanwhile led his army into Illyricum. For there the urgency of 

o c 1 

public affairs demanded his presence; and especially the proclamation of Vetranio as 
emperor by the military. On arriving at Sirmium, he came to a conference with Vetranio 
during a truce; and so managed, that the soldiers who had previously declared for him 
changed sides, and saluted Constantius alone as Augustus and sovereign autocrat. In the 
acclamations, therefore, no notice was taken of Vetranio. Vetranio, perceiving himself to 
be abandoned, immediately threw himself at the feet of the emperor; Constantius, taking 
from him his imperial crown and purple, treated him with great clemency, and recommended 
him to pass the rest of his days tranquilly in the condition of a private citizen: observing 
that a life of repose at his advanced age was far more suitable than a dignity which entailed 
anxieties and care. Vetranio’s affairs came to this issue; and the emperor ordered that a lib- 
eral provision out of the public revenue should be given him. Often afterwards writing to 
the emperor during his residence at Prusa in Bithynia, Vetranio assured him that he had 
conferred the greatest blessing on him, by liberating him from the disquietudes which are 
the inseparable concomitants of sovereign power. Adding that he himself did not act wisely 
in depriving himself of that happiness in retirement, which he had bestowed upon him. Let 
this suffice on this point. After these things, the Emperor Constantius having created Gallus 

350 The modern El-Onah or El-Kharjeh, situated west of the Nile, seven days’ journey from Thebes, contains 
several small streams, and abounds in vegetation, including palm-trees, orange and citron groves, olive orchards, 
&c. See Smith, Diet, of Geogr. 

351 Sozomen (IV. 4) calls him Ouetepavrov ; cf. also Zosimus, II. 44, on the way in which he was elevated 
and soon afterwards reduced. 


Athanasius' Account of the Deeds of Violence committed at Alexandria by... 


his kinsman Caesar, and given him his own name, sent him to Antioch in Syria, providing 
thus for the guarding of the eastern parts. When Gallus was entering this city, the Savior’s 
sign appeared in the East:' for a pillar in the form of a cross seen in the heavens gave oc- 
casion of great amazement to the spectators. His other generals the emperor despatched 
against Magnentius with considerable forces, and he himself remained at Sirmium, awaiting 
the course of events. 

352 See I. 1, and note on the name of Eusebius Pamphilus; cf. Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of Christ. Ant. 

353 Similar to the appearance mentioned in I. 2. See note on that passage. 


Of the Heresiarch Photinus. 

Chapter XXIX . — Of the Heresiarch Photinus. 

During this time Photinus , 354 who then presided over the church in that city more 
openly avowed the creed he had devised; wherefore a tumult being made in consequence, 
the emperor ordered a Synod of bishops to be held at Sirmium. There were accordingly 


convened there of the Oriental bishops, Mark of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, whom 

the Arians sent, as I have before said, having placed him over that see on the removal of 
Gregory, Basil who presided over the church at Ancyra after Marcellus was ejected, Pancra- 
tius of Pelusium, and Hypatian of Heraclea. Of the Western bishops there were present 
Valens of Mursa, and the then celebrated Hosius of Cordova in Spain, who attended much 
against his will. These met at Sirmium, after the consulate of Sergius and Nigrinian, in 


which year no consul celebrated the customary inaugural solemnities, in consequence 
of the tumults of war; and having met and found that Photinus held the heresy of Sabellius 
the Libyan, and Paul of Samosata, they immediately deposed him. This decision was both 
at that time and afterwards universally commended as honorable and just; but those who 
continued there, subsequently acted in a way which was by no means so generally approved. 

354 A disciple of Marcellus (see ch. 18). See Hilar, de Synod. 61, Cave on Photinus. 

355 The bishops here mentioned, according to Valesius, took part not in this council, but in another held at 
the same place nine years later, under the consuls Eusebius and Hypatius. 

356 351 a.d. So also Sozomen, IV. 6. 

357 The Ludi circenses, consisting of five games, leaping, wrestling, boxing, racing, and hurling, — called in 
Greek revraSAov , — with scenic representations and spectacles of wild beasts at the amphitheatre; with these 
the consuls entertained the people at their entrance on the consulate. Alluded to by Tacitus {Ann. 1. 2) and Juvenal 
{Sat. X. 1). Cf. Smith, Did. of Greek and Rom. Antiq. 


Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantins. 

Chapter XXX . — Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantins. 

As if they would rescind their former determinations respecting the faith, they published 
anew other expositions of the creed, viz.: one which Mark of Arethusa composed in Greek; 
and others in Latin, which harmonized neither in expression nor in sentiment with one 
another, nor with that dictated by the bishop of Arethusa. I shall here subjoin one of those 
drawn up in Latin, to that prepared in Greek by Mark: the other, which was afterwards recited 

o r o 

at Sirmium, will be given when we describe what was done at Ariminum. It must be un- 
derstood, however, that both the Latin forms were translated into Greek. The declaration 
of faith set forth by Mark, was as follows : 359 

‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, of 
whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named, and in his only begotten Son, 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of 
Light, by whom all things visible and invisible, which are in the heavens and upon the earth, 
were made: who is the Word, and the Wisdom, and the true Light, and the Life; who in the 
last days for our sake was made man and born of the holy virgin, and was crucified and died, 
and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and was received up into 
heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and is coming at the completion of the age 
to judge the living and the dead, and to requite every one according to his works: whose 
kingdom being everlasting, endures into infinite ages; for he will be seated at the Father’s 
right hand, not only in the present age, but also in that which is to come. [We believe] also 
in the Holy Spirit, that is to say the Comforter, whom, having promised to his apostles after 
his ascension into the heavens, to teach them, and bring all things to their remembrance, 
he sent; by whom also the souls of those who have sincerely believed in him are sanctified. 
But those who affirm that the Son is of things which are not, or of another substance, and 
not of God, and that there was a time or an age when he was not, the holy and catholic 
Church recognizes to be aliens. We therefore again say, if any one affirms that the Father 
and Son are two Gods, let him be anathema. And if any one admits that Christ is God and 
the Son of God before the ages, but does not confess that he ministered to the Father in the 
formation of all things, let him be anathema. If any one shall dare to assert that the Unbe- 
gotten, or a part of him, was born of Mary, let him be anathema. If any one should say that 
the Son was of Mary according to foreknowledge, and not that he was with God, begotten 

358 There were three councils held at Sirmium: one in 351, as already indicated in note 3, ch. 29; another in 
357, in which Hosius and Potamius composed their blasphemy; and one in 359. It was in this last council that 
that creed was drawn up which was recited in Ariminum. The confusion of Socrates on this point has been alluded 
to in the Introd. 

359 Athan. de Synod. 27. 

360 Eph. iii. 15. 


Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantins. 

of the Father before the ages, and that all things were not made by him, let him be anathema. 
If any one affirms the essence of God to be dilated or contracted, let him be anathema. If 
any one says that the dilated essence of God makes the Son, or shall term the Son the 
dilatation of his essence, let him be anathema. If any one calls the Son of God the internal 
or uttered word, let him be anathema. If any one declares that the Son that was born of Mary 
was man only, let him be anathema. If any man affirming him that was born of Mary to be 
God and man, shall imply the unbegotten God himself, let him be anathema. If any one 

OfT 1 

shall understand the text, “I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God,” 
which was spoken for the destruction of idols and false gods, in the sense the Jews do, as if 
it were said for the subversion of the only-begotten of God before the ages, let him be ana- 
thema. If any one hearing “the Word was made flesh,” should imagine that the Word 
was changed into flesh, or that he underwent any change in assuming flesh, let him be ana- 
thema. If any one hearing that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified, should say that 
his divinity underwent any corruption, or suffering, or change, or diminution, or destruction, 
let him be anathema. If any one should affirm that the Father said not to the Son, “Let us 

o zr o 

make man,” but that God spoke to himself, let him be anathema. If any one says that it 
was not the Son that was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let 
him be anathema. If any one says that it was not the Son that as man wrestled with Jacob, 
but the unbegotten God, or a part of him, let him be anathema. If any one shall understand 
the words, “The Lord rained from the Lord ,” 364 not in relation to the Father and the Son, 
but shall say that he rained from himself, let him be anathema: for the Lord the Son rained 
from the Lord the Father. If any one hearing “the Lord the Father, and the Lord the Son,” 
shall term both the Father and the Son Lord, and saying “the Lord from the Lord” shall assert 
that there are two Gods, let him be anathema. For we do not co-ordinate the Son with the 
Father, but [conceive him to be] subordinate to the Father. For he neither came down to 

■3 zr r 

the body without his Father’s will; nor did he rain from himself, but from the Lord (i.e. 
the Father) who exercises supreme authority: nor does he sit at the Father’s right hand of 
himself, but in obedience to the Father saying, “Sit thou at my right hand” [let him be 
anathema]. If any one should say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, let 
him be anathema. If any one, speaking of the Holy Spirit the Comforter, shall call him the 

361 Isa. xliv. 6. 

362 John i. 14. 

363 Gen. i. 26. 

364 Gen. xix. 24: ‘Then the Lord. . .rained brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’ 

365 Athanasius reads ETtt ZoSojta, not etc otojta. If this be the true reading, we should translate ‘came down 
to Sodom,’ &c. 

366 Ps. cix. 1 (LXX). 


Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantins. 

unbegotten God, let him be anathema. If any one, as he hath taught us, shall not say that 
the Comforter is other than the Son, when he has himself said, “the Father, whom I will ask, 
shall send you another Comforter,” let him be anathema. If any one affirm that the 
Spirit is part of the Father and of the Son, let him be anathema. If any one say that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Gods, let him be anathema. If any one say that the 
Son of God was made as one of the creatures by the will of God, let him be anathema. If any 
one shall say that the Son was begotten without the Father’s will, let him be anathema: for 
the Father did not, as compelled by any natural necessity, beget the Son at a time when he 
was unwilling; but as soon as it pleased him, he has declared that of himself without time 
and without passion, he begot him. If any one should say that the Son is unbegotten, and 
without beginning, intimating that there are two without beginning, and unbegotten, so 
making two Gods, let him be anathema: for the Son is the head and beginning of all things; 

o sr q 

but “the head of Christ is God.” Thus do we devoutly trace up all things by the Son to 
one source of all things who is without beginning. Moreover, to give an accurate conception 
of Christian doctrine, we again say, that if any one shall not declare Christ Jesus to have 
been the Son of God before all ages, and to have ministered to the Father in the creation of 
all things; but shall affirm that from the time only when he was born of Mary, was he called 
the Son and Christ, and that he then received the commencement of his divinity, let him 


be anathema, as the Samosatan.’ 

Another Exposition of the Faith set forth at Sirmium in Latin, 
and afterwards translated into Greek. 

Since it appeared good that some deliberation respecting the faith should be undertaken, 
all points have been carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium, in presence of Valens, 
Ursacius, Germinius, and others. 

It is evident that there is one God, the Father Almighty, according as it is declared over 
the whole world; and his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Saviour, begot- 
ten of him before the ages. But we ought not to say that there are two Gods, since the Lord 

'in - 1 

himself has said ‘I go unto my Father and your Father, and unto my God and your God. 
Therefore he is God even of all, as the apostle also taught, ‘Is he the God of the Jews only? 

367 John xiv. 16, 26. 

368 1 Cor. xi. 3. 

369 Paul of Samosata, see I. 36, note 3. 

370 Athan. de Synod. 28, and Hilar, de Synod, calls this creed ‘The blasphemy composed at Sirmium by Hosius 
and Potamius.’ 

371 John xx. 17. 


Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantins. 

Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yea of the Gentiles also; seeing that it is one God who shall 
justify the circumcision by faith. And in all other matters there is agreement, nor is there 

any ambiguity. But since it troubles very many to understand about that which is termed 
substantia in Latin, and ousia in Greek; that is to say, in order to mark the sense more accur- 
ately, the word homoousion or homoiousion, it is altogether desirable that none of 
these terms should be mentioned: nor should they be preached on in the church, for this 
reason, that nothing is recorded concerning them in the holy Scriptures; and because these 
things are above the knowledge of mankind and human capacity, and that no one can explain 
the Son’s generation, of which it is written, ‘And who shall declare his generation?’ ~ It is 
manifest that the Father only knows in what way he begat the Son; and again the Son, how 
he was begotten by the Father. But no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honor, 
dignity, and divinity, and in the very name of Father; the Son himself testifying ‘My Father 
who hath sent me is greater than I. And no one is ignorant that this is also catholic 
doctrine, that there are two persons of the Father and Son, and that the Father is the 
greater: but that the Son is subject, together with all things which the Father has subjected 
to him. That the Father had no beginning, and is invisible, immortal, and impassible: but 
that the Son was begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light; and that no one com- 
prehends his generation, as was before said, but the Father alone. That the Son himself, our 
Lord and God, took flesh or a body, that is to say human nature, according as the angel 
brought glad tidings: and as the whole Scriptures teaches, and especially the apostle who 
was the great teacher of the Gentiles, Christ assumed the human nature through which he 
suffered, from the Virgin Mary. But the summary and confirmation of the entire faith is, 
that [the doctrine of] the Trinity should be always maintained, according as we have read 
in the gospel, ‘Go ye and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the number of the Trinity is complete and perfect. 

Now the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, sent by the Son, came according to his promise, in order 
to sanctify and instruct the apostles and all believers. 

They endeavored to induce Photinus, even after his deposition, to assent to and subscribe 
these things, promising to restore him his bishopric, if by recantation he would anathematize 
the dogma he had invented, and adopt their opinion. But he did not accept their proposal, 

372 Rom. iii. 29, 30. 

373 Of the same substance. 

374 Of similar substance. 

375 Isa. liii. 5. 

376 John xiv. 28. 

377 kocSoAtkov , ‘universally accepted.’ 

378 Matt, xxviii. 19. 


Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantins. 

and on the other hand he challenged them to a disputation: and a day being appointed 

by the emperor’s arrangement, the bishops who were there present assembled, and not a 
few of the senators, whom the emperor had directed to attend to the discussion. In their 
presence, Basil, who at that time presided over the church at Ancyra, was appointed to oppose 
Photinus, and short-hand writers took down their respective speeches. The conflict of argu- 
ments on both sides was extremely severe; but Photinus having been worsted, was con- 
demned, and spent the rest of his life in exile, during which time he composed treatises in 
both languages — for he was not unskilled in Latin — against all heresies, and in favor of his 
own views. Concerning Photinus let this suffice. 

Now the bishops who were convened at Sirmium, were afterwards dissatisfied with that 
form of the creed which had been promulgated by them in Latin; for after its publication, 
it appeared to them to contain many contradictions. They therefore endeavored to get it 
back again from the transcribers; but inasmuch as many secreted it, the emperor by his 
edicts commanded that the version should be sought for, threatening punishment to any 
one who should be detected concealing it. These menaces, however, were incapable of sup- 
pressing what had already fallen into the hands of many. Let this suffice in regard to these 

379 ‘Epiphanius relates that Photinus, after he had been condemned and deposed in the synod of Sirmium, 
went to Constantius, and requested that he might dispute concerning the faith before judges nominated by him; 
and that Constantius enjoined Basilius, bishop of Ancyra, to undertake a disputation with Photinus, and gave 
leave that Thalassiuss, Datianus, Cerealis, and Taurus should be arbiters’ (Valesius). 


OfHosius, Bishop of Cordova. 

Chapter XXXI. — OfHosius, Bishop of Cordova. 

Since we have observed that Hosius the Spaniard was present [at the council of Sirmium] 
against his will, it is necessary to give some brief account of him. A short time before he had 
been sent into exile by the intrigues of the Arians: but at the earnest solicitation of those 
convened at Sirmium, the emperor summoned him thither, wishing that by persuasion, or 
by compulsion he should give his sanction to their proceedings; for if this could be effected, 
they considered it would give great authority to their sentiments. On this ground, therefore, 
as I have said, he was most unwillingly obliged to be present: and when he refused to concur 
with them, stripes and tortures were inflicted on the old man. Wherefore he was constrained 
by force to acquiesce in and subscribe to their exposition of the faith. Such was the issue of 
affairs at that time transacted at Sirmium. But the emperor Constantius after these things 
still continued to reside at that place, awaiting there the result of the war against Magnentius. 


Overthrow of the Usurper Magnentius. 

Chapter XXXII . — Overthrow of the Usurper Magnentius. 

Magnentius in the meanwhile having made himself master of the imperial city Rome, 
put to death many members of the senatorial council, as well as many of the populace. But 
as soon as the commanders under Constantius had collected an army of Romans, and 
commenced their march against him, he left Rome, and retired into the Gauls. There several 
battles were fought, sometimes to the advantage of one party, and sometimes to that of the 
other: but at last Magnentius having been defeated near Mursa — a fortress of Gaul — was 
there closely besieged. In this place the following remarkable incident is said to have occurred. 
Magnentius desiring to reassure the courage of his soldiers who were disheartened by their 
late overthrow, ascended a lofty tribunal for this purpose. They, wishing to give utterance 
to the usual acclamation with which they greet emperors, contrary to their intention simul- 
taneously all shouted the name not of Magnentius, but of Constantius Augustus. Regarding 
this as an omen unfavorable to himself, Magnentius immediately withdrew from the fortress, 
and retreated to the remotest parts of Gaul. Thither the generals of Constantius hastened 

o on 

in pursuit. An engagement having again taken place near Mount Seleucus, Magnentius 
was totally routed, and fled alone to Lyons, a city of Gaul, which is distant three days’ journey 
from the fortress at Mursa. Magnentius, having reached this city, first slew his own mother; 
then having killed his brother also, whom he had created Caesar, he at last committed suicide 
by falling on his own sword. This happened in the sixth consulate of Constantius, and the 

o o 1 

second of Constantius Gallus, on the fifteenth day of August. Not long after, the other 
brother of Magnentius, named Decentius, put an end to his own life by hanging himself. 
Such was the end of the enterprises of Magnentius. The affairs of the empire were not alto- 
gether quieted; for soon after this another usurper arose whose name was Silvanus: but the 
generals of Constantius speedily put him also out of the way, whilst raising disturbances in 

380 So in the Allat. ms., with the variant reading in other mss. MiAroaeAeuKOt; . 

381 353 a.d.; but the date is given differendy in Idatius’ Fasti. 


Of the Jews inhabiting Dio-Ccesarea in Palestine. 

Chapter XXXIII .— Of the Jews inhabiting Dio-Ccesarea in Palestine. 

About the same time there arose another intestine commotion in the East: for the Jews 
who inhabited Dio-Caesarea in Palestine took up arms against the Romans, and began to 
ravage the adjacent places. But Gallus who was also called Constantius, whom the emperor, 
after creating Caesar, had sent into the East, despatched an army against them, and completely 
vanquished them: after which he ordered that their city Dio-Caesarea should be razed to the 


OfGallus Ccesar. 

Chapter XXXIV . — OfGallus Ccesar. 

Gallus, having accomplished these things, was unable to bear his success with moderation; 
but forthwith attempted innovations against the authority of him who had constituted him 
Caesar, himself aspiring to the sovereign power. His purpose was, however, soon detected 
by Constantius: for he had dared to put to death, on his own responsibility, Domitian, at 
that time Praetorian prefect of the East, and Magnus the quaestor, not having disclosed his 
designs to the emperor. Constantius, extremely incensed at this conduct, summoned Gallus 
to his presence, who being in great terror went very reluctantly; and when he arrived in the 
western parts, and had reached the island of Flanona, Constantius ordered him to be slain. 
But not long after he created Julian, the brother of Gallus, Caesar, and sent him against the 
barbarians in Gaul. It was in the seventh consulate of the emperor Constantius that 
Gallus, who was surnamed Constantius, was slain, when he himself was a third time consul: 
and Julian was created Caesar on the 6th of November in the following year, when Arbetion 
and Lollian were consuls; of him we shall make farther mention in the next book. When 
Constantius was thus relieved from the disquietudes which had occupied him, his attention 
was again directed to ecclesiastical contentions. Going therefore from Sirmium to the im- 
perial city Rome, he again appointed a synod of bishops, summoning some of the eastern 

20 c 

prelates to hasten into Italy, and arranging for those of the west to meet them there. 
While preparations were making in the east for this purpose, Julius bishop of Rome died, 
after having presided over the church in that place fifteen years, and was succeeded in the 
episcopal dignity by Liberius. 

382 354 a.d. 

383 355 a.d. 

384 See III. 1. 

So rightly in the Allat. ms.; the variant faAAtav is inconsistent with the context. 



OfAetius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius. 

Chapter XXXV . — OfAetius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius. 

At Antioch in Syria another heresiarch sprang up, Aetius, surnamed Atheus. He agreed 
in doctrine with Arius, and maintained the same opinions: but separated himself from the 
Arian party because they had admitted Arius into communion. For Arius, as I have before 

o Q/r 

related, entertaining one opinion in his heart, professed another with his lips; having 
hypocritically assented to and subscribed the form of faith set forth at the council of Nicaea, 
in order to deceive the reigning emperor. On this account, therefore, Aetius separated 
himself from the Arians. He had, however, previously been a heretic, and a zealous advocate 
of Arian views. After receiving some very scanty instruction at Alexandria, he departed 
thence, and arrived at Antioch in Syria, which was his native place, was ordained deacon 
by Leontius, who was then bishop of that city. Upon this he began to astonish those who 
conversed with him by the singularity of his discourses. And this he did in dependence on 
the precepts of Aristotle’s Categories; there is a book of that name, the scope of which he 
neither himself perceived, nor had been enlightened on by intercourse with learned persons: 
so that he was little aware that he was framing fallacious arguments to perplex and deceive 
himself. For Aristotle had composed this work to exercise the ingenuity of his young disciples, 
and to confound by subtle arguments the sophists who affected to deride philosophy. 
Wherefore the Ep hectic academicians, who expound the writings of Plato and Plotinus, 
censure the vain subtlety which Aristotle has displayed in that book: but Aetius, who never 
had the advantage of an academical preceptor, adhered to the sophisms of the Categories. 
For this reason he was unable to comprehend how there could be generation without a be- 
ginning, and how that which was begotten can be co-eternal with him who begat. In fact, 
Aetius was a man of so superficial attainments, and so little acquainted with the sacred 
Scriptures, and so extremely fond of caviling, a thing which any clown might do, that he 
had never carefully studied those ancient writers who have interpreted the Christian oracles; 
wholly rejecting Clemens and Africanus and Origen, men eminent for their information in 
every department of literature and science. But he composed epistles both to the emperor 
Constantius, and to some other persons, wherein he interwove tedious disputes for the 
purpose of displaying his sophisms. He has therefore been surnamed Atheus. But although 
his doctrinal statements were similar to those of the Arians, yet from the abstruse nature of 

386 1. 26. 

387 Diogenes Laertius, Proem. XI (16), says: ‘Philosophers were generally divided into two classes, — the 
dogmatics, who spoke of things as they might be comprehended; and the ephectics, who refused to define anything, 
and disputed so as to make the understanding of them impossible.’ The word ‘ephectic’ is derived from the verb 
eTCxto, ‘to hold back,’ and was used by the philosophers to whom it is applied as a title because they claimed to 
hold back their judgment, being unable to reach a conclusion. Cf. also the name ‘skeptic,’ from aK£Ttropai . See 
Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics, p. 525. 


OfAetius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius. 

his syllogisms, which they were unable to comprehend, his associates in Arianism pronounced 
him a heretic. Being for that reason expelled from their church, he pretended to have separ- 
ated himself from their communion. Even in the present day there are to be found some 
who from him were formerly named Aetians, but now Eunomians. For some time later 
Eunomius, who had been his amanuensis, having been instructed by his master in this 
heretical mode of reasoning, afterwards became the head of that sect. But of Eunomius we 


shall speak more fully in the proper place. 

388 IV. 7. 


Of the Synod at Milan. 

Chapter XXXVI .— Of the Synod at Milan. 

Now at that time the bishops met in Italy, very few indeed from the East, most of them 
being hindered from coming either by the firmities of age or by the distance; but of the West 


there were more than three hundred. It was a command of the emperor that they should 
be assembled at Milan. On meeting, the Eastern prelates opened the Synod by calling upon 
those convened to pass a unanimous sentence of condemnation against Athanasius; with 
this object in view, that he might thenceforward be utterly shut out from Alexandria. But 
Paulinus, bishop of Treves in Gaul, and Dionysius, of whom the former was bishop of Al- 
ba , 390 the metropolis of Italy, and Eusebius of Vercellae, a city of Liguria in Italy, perceiving 
that the Eastern bishops, by demanding a ratification of the sentence against Athanasius, 
were intent on subverting the faith, arose and loudly exclaimed that ‘this proposition indic- 
ated a covert plot against the principles of Christian truth. For they insisted that the charges 
against Athanasius were unfounded, and merely invented by his accusers as a means of 
corrupting the faith.’ Having made this protest with much vehemence of manner, the congress 
of bishops was then dissolved. 



389 So also Sozomen, IV. 9; but the number appears exorbitant. Valesius conjectures that the texts of Socrates 
and Sozomen are corrupted, and that we must read thirty instead of three hundred. The smaller number agrees 
exactly with the list given in the epistle of this council to Eusebius of Vercellae; in this list thirty bishops are 
named as agreeing to the condemnation of Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus. Cf. Baronius, Annul, year 355. 

390 Sozomen (IV. 9) agrees here also with Socrates; but Athanasius, in Epist. ad Solitar., and after him Bar- 
onius and Valesius, make Milan and not Alba, the metropolis of Italy, and Dionysius bishop of Milan, and not 
of Alba. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

OQ 1 

Chapter XXXVII. — Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

The emperor on being apprised of what had taken place, sent these three bishops into 
exile; and determined to convene an ecumenical council, that by drawing all the Eastern 
bishops into the West, he might if possible bring them all to agree. But when, on considera- 
tion, the length of the journey seemed to present serious obstacles, he directed that the 
Synod should consist of two divisions; permitting those present at Milan to meet at Ariminum 
in Italy: but the Eastern bishops he instructed by letters to assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia. 
The emperor’s object in these arrangements was to effect a general unity of opinion; but the 
issue was contrary to his expectation. For neither of the Synods was in harmony with itself, 
but each was divided into opposing factions: for those convened at Ariminum could not 
agree with one another; and the Eastern bishops assembled at Seleucia in Isauria made an- 
other schism. The details of what took place in both we will give in the course of our his- 
tory, but we shall first make a few observations on Eudoxius. About that time Leontius 
having died, who had ordained the heretic Aetius as deacon, Eudoxius bishop of German - 

icia — this city is in Syria — who was then at Rome, thinking no time was to be lost, speciously 
represented to the emperor that the city over which he presided was in need of his counsel 
and care, and requested permission to return there immediately. This the emperor readily 
acceded to, having no suspicion of a clandestine purpose: Eudoxius having some of the 
principal officers of the emperor’s bedchamber as coadjutors, deserted his own diocese, and 
fraudulently installed himself in the see of Antioch. His first desire was to restore Aetius; 
accordingly he convened a council of bishops for the purpose of reinvesting Aetius with the 
dignity of the diaconate. But this could in no way be brought about, for the odium with 
which Aetius was regarded was more prevalent than the exertions of Eudoxius in his favor. 
When the bishops were assembled at Ariminum, those from the East declared that they 
were willing to pass in silence the case of Athanasius: a resolution that was zealously suppor- 
ted by Ursacius and Valens, who had formerly maintained the tenets of Arius; but, as I have 
already stated, had afterwards presented a recantation of their opinion to the bishop of 
Rome, and publicly avowed their assent to the doctrine of consubstantiality. For these men 
always inclined to side with the dominant party. Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus and 
Gaius made the same declaration in reference to Athanasius. When therefore some en- 
deavored to propose one thing in the convocation of bishops, and some another, Ursacius 

391 Cf. Sozomen, III. 19; IV. 15-19; Theodoret, H. E. II. 18-21; Rufin. II. 21; Philostorgius, IV. 10. Also Hefele, 
Hist, of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 246-271. 

392 Ch. 39. 

393 According to Theodoret ( H . E. II. 19) Aetius was promoted to the diaconate under Leontius at Antioch; 
but Leontius, on being censured by Flavian and Diodorus for ordaining one who was notorious for his blasphem- 
ous utterances, divested him of his diaconate. Hence, later, Eudoxius attempted to restore him, as is here said. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

and Valens said that all former draughts of the creed ought to be considered as set aside, 
and the last alone, which had been prepared at their late convention at Sirmium, regarded 
as authorized. They then caused to be read a paper which they held in their hands, containing 
another form of the creed: this had indeed been drawn up at Sirmium, but had been kept 
concealed, as we have before observed, until their present publication of it at Ariminum. It 
has been translated from the Latin into Greek, and is as follows : 394 


’The catholic faith was expounded at Sirmium in presence of our lord Constantius, 
in the consulate of the most illustrious Flavius Eusebius, and Hypatius, on the twenty- 
third of May. 

‘We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Framer of 
all things: and in one only-begotten Son of God, before all ages, before all beginning, before 
all conceivable time, and before all comprehensible thought, begotten without passion: by 
whom the ages were framed, and all things made: who was begotten as the only-begotten 
of the Father, only of only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the 
Scriptures: whose generation no one knows, but the Father only who begat him. We know 
that this his only-begotten Son came down from the heavens by his Father’s consent for the 
putting away of sin, was born of the Virgin Mary, conversed with his disciples, and fulfilled 
every dispensation according to the Father’s will: was crucified and died, and descended 
into the lower parts of the earth, and disposed matters there; at the sight of whom the (door- 
keepers of Hades trembled ): having arisen on the third day, he again conversed with his 
disciples, and after forty days were completed he ascended into the heavens, and is seated 
at the Father’s right hand; and at the last day he will come in his Father’s glory to render to 
every one according to his works. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-be- 
gotten Son of God Jesus Christ himself promised to send to the human race as the Comforter, 
according to that which is written: ‘I go away to my Father, and will ask him, and he will 

394 Athan. de Synod. 8; but Athanasius does not say that this creed was translated from Latin, as he does 
whenever he produces any document put into Greek from Latin; whence it appears, according to Valesius, that 
this is the form drawn up in Greek by Marcus of Arethusa, and submitted to the third Sirmium council in 359, 
but read at Ariminum as here said (cf. ch. 30, and note). The argument is not considered conclusive by Reading 
as far as it regards the original language of the creed; that it was written by Marcus of Arethusa, however, seems 
to be proved. 

395 The title of the emperor in Athanasius’ version is ‘The most pious and victorious emperor Constantius 
Augustus, eternal Augustus,’ &c., which agrees with the representations of the ancients on the vainglory of 
Constantius. Cf. Amm. Marcellin. Rerum Gestarum, XVI. 10. 2, 3 (ed. Eyssenhardt). 

396 359 a.d. 

397 Job xxxviii. 17 (LXX). 

398 John xiv. 16; xvi. 14. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. He shall receive of mine, and shall teach 
you, and bring all things to your remembrance.” As for the term “substance,” which was 
used by our fathers for the sake of greater simplicity, but not being understood by the people 
has caused offense on account of the fact that the Scriptures do not contain it, it seemed 
desirable that it should be wholly abolished, and that in future no mention should be made 
of substance in reference to God, since the divine Scriptures have nowhere spoken concerning 
the substance of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is in all things like the 
Father, as the Holy Scriptures affirm and teach.’ 

These statements having been read, those who were dissatisfied with them rose and said 
‘We came not hither because we were in want of a creed; for we preserve inviolate that which 
we received from the beginning; but we are here met to repress any innovation upon it 
which may have been made. If therefore what has been recited introduces no novelties, now 
openly anathematize the Arian heresy, in the same manner as the ancient canon of the 
church has rejected all heresies as blasphemous: for it is evident to the whole world that the 
impious dogma of Arius has excited the disturbances of the church, and the troubles which 
exist until now.’ This proposition, which was not accepted by Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, 
Auxentius, Demophilus, and Ga'ius, rent the church asunder completely: for these prelates 
adhered to what had then been recited in the Synod of Ariminum; while the others again 
confirmed the Nicene Creed. They also ridiculed the superscription of the creed that had 
been read; and especially Athanasius, in a letter which he sent to his friends, wherein he 
thus expresses himself : 399 

‘What point of doctrine was wanting to the piety of the catholic church, that they should 
now make an investigation respecting the faith, and prefix moreover the consulate of the 
present times to their published exposition of it? For Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius have 
done what was neither done, nor even heard of, at any time before among Christians: having 
composed a creed such as they themselves are willing to believe, they prefaced it with the 
consulate, month, and day of the present time, in order to prove to all discerning persons 
that theirs is not the ancient faith, but such as was originated under the reign of the present 
emperor Constantius . 400 Moreover they have written all things with a view to their own 
heresy: and besides this, pretending to write respecting the Lord, they name another “Lord” 
as theirs, even Constantius, who has countenanced their impiety, so that those who deny 
the Son to be eternal, have styled him eternal emperor. Thus are they proved to be the enemies 
of Christ by their profanity. But perhaps the holy prophets’ record of time afforded them a 
precedent for [noticing] the consulate! Now even if they should presume to make this pretext, 

399 Athan. de Synod. 8. 

400 This appeal to antiquity, as the test of truth, is very common with the earlier Fathers; cf. Eusebius’ treatment 
of the Scriptures of the New Testament, H. E. III. 3, 24, 25, et al. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

they would most glaringly expose their own ignorance. The prophecies of these holy men 
do indeed mark the times. Isaiah and Hosea lived in the days of Uzziah, Joatham, Ahaz, and 
Hezekiah ; 401 Jeremiah in the time of Josiah ; 402 Ezekiel and Daniel in the reign of Cyrus and 
Darius; and others uttered their predictions in other times. Yet they did not then lay the 
foundations of religion. That was in existence before them, and always was, even before the 
creation of the world, God having prepared it for us in Christ. Nor did they designate the 
commencement of their own faith; for they were themselves men of faith previously: but 
they signified the times of the promises given through them. Now the promises primarily 
referred to our Saviour’s advent; and all that was foretold respecting the course of future 
events in relation to Israel and the Gentiles was collateral and subordinate. Hence the periods 
mentioned indicated not the beginning of their faith, as I before observed, but the times in 
which these prophets lived and foretold such things. But these sages of our day, who neither 
compile histories, nor predict future events, after writing, “The Catholic Faith was published,” 
immediately add the consulate, with the month and the day: and as the holy prophets wrote 
the date of their records and of their own ministration, so these men intimate the era of 
their own faith. And would that they had written concerning their own faith only — since 
they have now begun to believe — and had not undertaken to write respecting the Catholic 
faith. For they have not written, “Thus we believe”; but, “The Catholic Faith was published.” 
The temerity of purpose herein manifested argues their ignorance; while the novelty of ex- 
pression found in the document they have concocted shows it to be the same as the Arian 
heresy. By writing in this manner, they have declared when they themselves began to believe, 
and from what time they wish it to be understood their faith was first preached. And just 
as when the evangelist Luke says , 403 “A decree of enrolment was published,” he speaks of 
an edict which was not in existence before, but came into operation at that time, and was 
published by him who had written it; so these men by writing “The faith has now been 
published,” have declared that the tenets of their heresy are of modern invention, and did 
not exist previously. But since they apply the term “Catholic” to it, they seem to have uncon- 
sciously fallen into the extravagant assumption of the Cataphrygians, asserting even as they 
did, that “the Christian faith was first revealed to us, and commenced with us.” And as those 
termed Maximilla and Montanus, so these style Constantius their Lord, instead of Christ. 
But if according to them the faith had its beginning from the present consulate, what will 
the fathers and the blessed martyrs do? Moreover what will they themselves do with those 
who were instructed in religious principles by them, and died before this consulate? By what 
means will they recall them to life, in order to obliterate from their minds what they seemed 

401 Isa. i. 2; Hos. i. 1. 

402 Jer. i. 2. 

403 Luke ii. 1. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

to have taught them, and to implant in its stead those new discoveries which they have 
published? So stupid are they as to be only capable of framing pretenses, and these such as 
are unbecoming and unreasonable, and carry with them their own refutation.’ 

Athanasius wrote thus to his friends: and the interested who may read through his whole 
epistle will perceive how powerfully he treats the subject; but for brevity’s sake we have here 
inserted a part of it only. The Synod deposed Valens, Ursacius, Auxentius, Germinius, Gaius, 
and Demophilus for refusing to anathematize the Arian doctrine; who being very indignant 
at their deposition, hastened directly to the emperor, carrying with them the exposition of 
faith which had been read in the Synod. The council also acquainted the emperor with their 
determinations in a communication which translated from the Latin into Greek, was to the 
following effect : 404 

Epistle of the Synod of Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius. 

We believe that it was by the appointment of God, as well as at the command of your 
piety, that the decrees formerly published have been executed. Accordingly we Western 
bishops came out of various districts to Ariminum, in order that the faith of the catholic 
church might be made manifest, and that those who held contrary views might be detected. 
For on a considerate review by us of all points, our decision has been to adhere to the ancient 
faith which the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles have revealed through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the guardian of your empire, and the protector of your person, which faith also we 
have always maintained. We conceived that it would be unwarrantable and impious to 
mutilate any of those things which have been justly and rightly ratified, by those who sat in 
the Nicene council with Constantine of glorious memory, the father of your piety. Their 
doctrine and views have been infused into the minds and preached in the hearing of the 
people, and found to be powerfully opposed, even fatal, to the Arian heresy. And not only 
this heresy, but also all others have been put down by it. Should therefore anything be added 
to or taken away from what was at that time established, it would prove perilous; for if either 
of these things should happen, the enemy will have boldness to do as they please . 405 

404 Athan, de Synod. 10. The Latin original which is given in Hilar. Fragm. 8, was adopted by Valesius in this 
place, and subsequently also by the English translators. We have followed the Greek of Socrates, giving the most 
important differences in the following four notes; viz. 15, 16, 17, and 18. How these variations originated it is 
impossible to tell with assurance; but it is not improbable that they may represent two drafts, of which one was 
originally tentative. 

405 The Latin original here contains the following paragraph not reproduced by Socrates: ‘These matters 
having been stricdy investigated and the creed drawn up in the presence of Constantine, who after being baptized, 
departed to God’s rest in the faith of it, we regard as an abomination any infringement thereon, or any attempt 
to invalidate the authority of so many saints, confessors, and successors of the martyrs, who assisted at that 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

Wherefore Ursacius and Valens being heretofore suspected of entertaining Arian senti- 
ments, were suspended from communion: but in order to be restored to it they made an 
apology, and claimed that they had repented of their shortcoming, as their written recantation 
attests: they therefore obtained pardon and complete absolution. 

The time when these things occurred was when the council was in session at Milan, 
when the presbyters of the church of Rome were also present. 

At 406 the same time, having known that Constantine, who even after his death is worthy 
of honorable mention, exposed the faith with due precision, but being born of men was 
baptized and departed to the peace due to him as his reward, we have deemed it improper 
to innovate after him disregarding so many holy confessors and martyrs, who also were 
authors of this confession, and persevered in their faith in the ancient system of the catholic 
church. Their faith God has perpetuated down to the years of your own reign through our 
Lord Jesus Christ, through whose grace it also became possible for you to so strengthen 
your dominion as to rule over one portion of the world. 

Yet have these infatuated and wretched persons, endued with an unhappy disposition, 
again had the temerity to declare themselves the propagators of false doctrine, and even 
endeavor to subvert the constitution of the Church. For when the letters of your piety had 
ordered us to assemble for the examination of the faith, they laid bare their intention, stripped 
of its deceitful garb. For they attempted with certain craft and confusion to propose innov- 
ations, having in this as allies Germinius, Auxentius , 407 and Gaius, who continually cause 
strife and dissension, and their single teaching has surpassed the whole body of blasphemies. 
But when they perceived that we had not the same disposition or mind as they in regard to 
their false views they changed their minds during our council and said another expression 
of belief should be put forth. And short indeed was the time which convinced them of the 
falsity of their views. 

In order, therefore, that the affairs of the Church may not be continually brought into 
the same condition, and in order that trouble and tumult may not continually arise and 
confuse all things, it appeared safe to preserve the previously determined views firm and 
unalterable, and to separate from our communion the persons above named; for which 
reason we have despatched to your clemency delegates who will communicate the opinion 
of the council to you. And to our delegates we have given this commission above all, that 
they should accredit the truth taking their motive from the ancient and right decisions. They 

council, and themselves preserved inviolate all the determinations of the ancient writers of the catholic church: 
whose faith has remained unto these times in which your piety has received from God the Father, through Jesus 
Christ our God and Lord, the power of ruling the world.’ 

406 The Latin original omits the following paragraph, ending with the words ‘over our portion of the world.’ 

407 The Latin original in Hilar, omits the name of Auxentius. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

will inform your holiness that peace will not be established as Ursacius and Valens say when 
some point of the right be overturned. For how can those be at peace who destroy peace? 
Rather will strife and tumult be occasioned by these things in the church of Rome also, as 
in the other cities. Wherefore, now, we beseech your clemency that you should look upon 
our delegation with a calm eye and listen to it with favor, and not allow that anything should 
be changed, thus bringing insult to the deceased, but permit us to continue in those things 
which have been defined and legislated by our ancestors; who, we should say, acted with 
shrewdness and wisdom and with the Holy Spirit. For the innovations they introduce at 
present fill the believing with distrust and the unbelieving with cruelty . 408 We further implore 
you to instruct that the bishops who dwell in foreign parts, whom both the infirmity of age 
and the ills of poverty harass should be assisted to return easily and speedily to their own 
homes, so that the churches may not remain bereft of their bishops. Still further we beg of 
you this also, that nothing be stricken off, nor anything be added, to the articles [of faith] 
remaining over from the times of your pious father even until now; but that these may 
continue inviolate. Permit us not to toil and suffer longer, nor to be separated from our 
dioceses, but that together with our own peoples we may in peace have time to offer prayers 
and thanksgiving, supplicating for your safety and continuance in the dominion, which may 
the divinity grant unto you perpetually. Our delegates bear the signatures and greetings of 
the bishops. These [delegates] will from the Divine Scriptures themselves instruct your piety. 

The Synod then thus wrote and sent their communications to the emperor by the 
bishops [selected for that purpose] . But the partisans of Ursacius and Valens having arrived 
before them, did their utmost to calumniate the council, exhibiting the exposition of the 
faith which they had brought with them. The emperor, prejudiced beforehand towards 
Arianism, became extremely exasperated against the Synod, but conferred great honor on 
Valens and Ursacius and their friends. Those deputed by the council were consequently 
detained a considerable time, without being able to obtain an answer: at length, however, 
the emperor replied through those who had come to him, in the manner following: 

‘Constantius Victor and Triumphator Augustus to all the bishops convened at Ariminum. 

‘That our especial care is ever exercised respecting the divine and venerated law even 
your sanctity is not ignorant. Nevertheless we have hitherto been unable to give an audience 
to the twenty bishops sent as deputation from you, for an expedition against the barbarians 
has become necessary. And since, as you will admit, matters relative to the divine law ought 
to be entered on with a mind free from all anxiety; I have therefore ordered these bishops 
to await our return to Adrianople; that when all public business shall have been duly attended 
to, we may be able then to hear and consider what they shall propose. In the meanwhile let 

408 Instead of the Greek words here translated, ‘fill the believing with distrust and the unbelieving with 
cruelty,’ the Latin original reads ‘verum etiam infideles ad credulitatem vetantur accedere.’ 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

it not seem troublesome to your gravity to wait for their return; since when they shall convey 
to you our resolution, you will be prepared to carry into effect such measures as may be 
most advantageous to the welfare of the catholic church.’ 

The bishops on receipt of this letter wrote thus in reply : 409 

‘We have received your clemency’s letter, sovereign lord, most beloved of God, in which 
you inform us that the exigencies of state affairs have hitherto prevented your admitting 
our delegates to your presence: and you bid us await their return, until your piety shall have 
learnt from them what has been determined on by us in conformity with the tradition of 
our ancestors. But we again protest by this letter that we can by no means depart from our 
primary resolution; and this also we have commissioned our deputies to state. We beseech 
you therefore, both with serene countenance to order this present epistle of our modesty to 
be read; and also to listen favorably to the representations with which our delegates have 
been charged. Your mildness doubtless perceives, as well as we, to how great an extent grief 
and sadness prevail, because of so many churches being bereft of their bishops in these most 
blessed times of yours. Again therefore we entreat your clemency, sovereign lord most dear 
to God, to command us to return to our churches, if it please your piety, before the rigor of 
winter; in order that we may be enabled, in conjunction with the people, to offer up our 
accustomed prayers to Almighty God, and to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, his only- 
begotten Son, for the prosperity of your reign, as we have always done, and even now do in 
our prayers.’ 

The bishops having waited together some time after this letter had been despatched, 
inasmuch as the emperor deigned no reply, they departed to their respective cities. Now the 
emperor had long before intended to disseminate Arian doctrine throughout the churches; 
and was anxious to give it the pre-eminence; hence he pretended that their departure was 
an act of contumely, declaring that they had treated him with contempt by dissolving the 
council in opposition to his wishes. He therefore gave the partisans of Ursacius unbounded 
license to act as they pleased in regard to the churches: and directed that the revised form 
of creed which had been read at Ariminum should be sent to the churches throughout Italy; 
ordering that whoever would not subscribe it should be ejected from their sees, and that 
others should be substituted in their place . 410 And first Liberius, bishop of Rome, having 
refused his assent to that creed, was sent into exile; the adherents of Ursacius appointing 
Felix to succeed him, who had been a deacon in that church, but on embracing the Arian 
heresy was elevated to the episcopate. Some however assert that he was not favorable to that 
opinion, but was constrained by force to receive the ordination of bishop. After this all parts 
of the West were filled with agitation and tumult, some being ejected and banished, and 

409 Cf. Theodoret, H. E. II. 20. 

410 Cf. Theodoret, H. E. II. 16. 


Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published. 

others established in their stead. These things were effected by violence, on the authority of 
the imperial edicts, which were also sent into the eastern parts. Not long after indeed 
Liberius was recalled, and reinstated in his see; for the people of Rome having raised a 
sedition, and expelled Felix from their church, the emperor even though against his wish 
consented. The partisans of Ursacius, quitting Italy, passed through the eastern parts; and 
arriving at Nice, a city of Thrace, they dwelt there a short time and held another Synod, and 
after translating the form of faith which was read at Ariminum into Greek, they confirmed 
and published it afresh in the form quoted above, giving it the name of the general council, 
in this way attempting to deceive the more simple by the similarity of names, and to impose 
upon them as the creed promulgated at Nicaea in Bithynia, that which they had prepared at 
Nice in Thrace . 411 But this artifice was of little advantage to them; for it was soon detected, 
they became the object of derision. Enough now has been said of the transactions which 
took place in the West: we must now proceed to the narrative of what was done in the East 
at the same time. 

411 Hilar. Fragm. 8; Hefele, Hist, of Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 257. 


Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him. 

Chapter XXXVIII .— Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him. 

The bishops of the Arian party began to assume greater assurance from the imperial 
edicts. In what manner they undertook to convene a Synod, we will explain somewhat later. 
Let us now briefly mention a few of their previous acts. Acacius and Patrophilus having 
ejected Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, installed Cyril in his see. Macedonius subverted the 
order of things in the cities and provinces adjacent to Constantinople, promoting to eccle- 
siastical honors his assistants in his intrigues against the churches . 412 He ordained Eleusius 
bishop of Cyzicus, and Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia: the latter had before been a 
deacon under Macedonius himself, and proved very active in founding monasteries both 
of men and women. But we must now mention in what way Macedonius desolated the 
churches in the cities and provinces around Constantinople. This man, as I have already 
said , 413 having seized the bishopric, inflicted innumerable calamities on such as were un- 
willing to adopt his views. His persecutions were not confined to those who were recognized 
as members of the catholic church, but extended to the Novatians also, inasmuch as he knew 
that they maintained the doctrine of the homoousion; they therefore with the others under- 
went the most intolerable sufferings, but their bishop, Angelius by name, effected his escape 
by flight. Many persons eminent for their piety were seized and tortured, because they refused 
to communicate with him: and after the torture, they forcibly constrained the men to be 
partakers of the holy mysteries, their mouths being forced open with a piece of wood, and 
then the consecrated elements thrust into them. Those who were so treated regarded this 
as a punishment far more grievous than all others. Moreover they laid hold of women and 
children, and compelled them to be initiated [by baptism] ; and if any one resisted or otherwise 
spoke against it, stripes immediately followed, and after the stripes, bonds and imprisonment, 
and other violent measures. I shall here relate an instance or two whereby the reader may 
form some idea of the extent of the harshness and cruelty exercised by Macedonius and 
those who were then in power. They first pressed in a box, and then sawed off, the breasts 
of such women as were unwilling to communicate with them. The same parts of the persons, 
of other women they burnt partly with iron, and partly with eggs intensely heated in the 
fire. This mode of torture which was unknown even among the heathen, was invented by 

412 From this place it plainly appears, as Valesius remarks, that the authority of the see of Constantinople 
was acknowledged, even before the council of Constantinople, throughout the region of the Hellespont and 
Bithynia, which conclusion is also confirmed by the acts of Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, who made 
Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. Two causes co-operated to secure this authority, viz. (1) the official establishment 
of the city as the capital of the empire by Constantine, and (2) the transference to it of Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
a most vigorous and aggressive bishop, who missed no opportunity for enlarging and consolidating the power 
of his see. 

413 See above, ch. 16. 


Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him. 

those who professed to be Christians. These facts were related to me by the aged Auxanon, 
the presbyter in the Novatian church of whom I spoke in the first book . 414 He said also that 
he had himself endured not a few severities from the Arians, prior to his reaching the dignity 
of presbyter; having been thrown into prison and beaten with many stripes, together with 
Alexander the Paphlagonian, his companion in the monastic life. He added that he had 
himself been able to sustain these tortures, but that Alexander died in prison from the effects 
of their infliction. He is now buried on the right of those sailing into the bay of Con- 
stantinople which is called Ceras, close by the rivers, where there is a church of the Novatians 
named after Alexander. Moreover the Arians, at the instigation of Macedonius, demolished 
with many other churches in various cities, that of the Novatians at Constantinople near 
Pelargus. Why I particularly mention this church, will be seen from the extraordinary cir- 
cumstances connected with it, as testified by the same aged Auxanon. The emperor’s edict 
and the violence of Macedonius had doomed to destruction the churches of those who 
maintained the doctrine of consubstantiality; the decree and violence reached this church, 
and those also who were charged with the execution of the mandate were at hand to carry 
it into effect. I cannot but admire the zeal displayed by the Novatians on this occasion, as 
well as the sympathy they experienced from those whom the Arians at that time ejected, 
but who are now in peaceful possession of their churches. For when the emissaries of their 
enemies were urgent to accomplish its destruction, an immense multitude of Novatians, 
aided by numbers of others who held similar sentiments, having assembled around this 
devoted church, pulled it down, and conveyed the materials of it to another place: this place 
stands opposite the city, and is called Sycae, and forms the thirteenth ward of the town of 
Constantinople. This removal was effected in a very short time, from the extraordinary ardor 
of the numerous persons engaged in it: one carried tiles, another stones, a third timber; 
some loading themselves with one thing, and some with another. Even women and children 
assisted in the work, regarding it as the realization of their best wishes, and esteeming it the 
greatest honor to be accounted the faithful guardians of things consecrated to God. In this 
way at that time was the church of the Novatians transported to Sycae. Long afterwards 
when Constantius was dead, the emperor Julian ordered its former site to be restored, and 
permitted them to rebuild it there. The people therefore, as before, having carried back the 
materials, reared the church in its former position; and from this circumstance, and its great 
improvement in structure and ornament, they not inappropriately called it Anastasia. The 
church as we before said was restored afterwards in the reign of Julian. But at that time both 
the Catholics and the Novatians were alike subjected to persecution: for the former abom- 
inated offering their devotions in those churches in which the Arians assembled, but fre- 

414 I. 13. 


Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him. 

quented the other three 415 — for this is the number of the churches which the Novatians 
have in the city — and engaged in divine service with them. Indeed they would have been 
wholly united, had not the Novatians refused from regard to their ancient precepts. In other 
respects however, they mutually maintained such a degree of cordiality and affection, as to 
be ready to lay down their lives for one another: both parties were therefore persecuted in- 
discriminately, not only at Constantinople, but also in other provinces and cities. At Cyzicus, 
Eleusius, the bishop of that place, perpetrated the same kind of enormities against the 
Christians there, as Macedonius had done elsewhere, harassing and putting them to flight 
in all directions and [among other things] he completely demolished the church of the 
Novatians at Cyzicus. But Macedonius consummated his wickedness in the following 
manner. Hearing that there was a great number of the Novatian sect in the province of 
Paphlagonia, and especially at Mantinium, and perceiving that such a numerous body could 
not be driven from their homes by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by the emperor’s permission, 
four companies of soldiers to be sent into Paphlagonia, that through dread of the military 
they might receive the Arian opinion. But those who inhabited Mantinium, animated to 
desperation by zeal for their religion, armed themselves with long reap-hooks, hatchets, and 
whatever weapon came to hand, and went forth to meet the troops; on which a conflict en- 
suing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians were slain, but nearly all the soldiers were destroyed. 
I learnt these things from a Paphlagonian peasant who said that he was present at the en- 
gagement; and many others of that province corroborate this account. Such were the exploits 
of Macedonius on behalf of Christianity, consisting of murders, battles, incarcerations, and 
civil wars: proceedings which rendered him odious not only to the objects of his persecution, 
but even to his own party. He became obnoxious also to the emperor on these accounts, 
and particularly so from the circumstance I am about to relate. The church where the coffin 
lay that contained the relics of the emperor Constantine threatened to fall. On this account 
those that entered, as well as those who were accustomed to remain there for devotional 
purposes, were in much fear. Macedonius, therefore, wished to remove the emperor’s re- 
mains, lest the coffin should be injured by the ruins. The populace getting intelligence of 
this, endeavored to prevent it, insisting ‘that the emperor’s bones should not be disturbed, 

415 According to Valesius it appears incredible that the Catholics should have done what Socrates says they 
did. ‘For there is nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical discipline than to communicate with heretics either in 
the sacraments or in prayer.’ Hence ‘Socrates was probably imposed upon by the aged Auxano, who fixed upon 
all the Catholics what was perhaps done by some few Christians who were less cautious.’ But Socrates’ own attitude 
towards the Novatians (cf. Introd. p. x.) shows that the difference between them and the Catholics (ol rrjc; 
6KKAr|Gta<;) was not universally regarded as an absolute schism forbidding communication even during such 
times of trial as these described here, which might certainly have drawn together parties already as near to one 
another as the Novatians and Catholics. 


Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him. 

as such a disinterment would be equivalent, to their being dug up’: many however affirmed 
that its removal could not possibly injure the dead body, and thus two parties were formed 
on this question; such as held the doctrine of consubstantiality joining with those who op- 
posed it on the ground of its impiety. Macedonius, in total disregard of these prejudices, 
caused the emperor’s remains to be transported to the church where those of the martyr 
Acacius lay. Whereupon a vast multitude rushed toward that edifice in two hostile divisions, 
which attacked one another with great fury, and great loss of life was occasioned, so that 
the churchyard was covered with gore, and the well also which was in it overflowed with 
blood, which ran into the adjacent portico, and thence even into the very street. When the 
emperor was informed of this unfortunate occurrence, he was highly incensed against 
Macedonius, both on account of the slaughter which he had occasioned, and because he 
had dared to move his father’s body without consulting him. Having therefore left the Caesar 
Julian to take care of the western parts, he himself set out for the east. How Macedonius was 
a short time afterwards deposed, and thus suffered a most inadequate punishment for his 
infamous crimes, I shall hereafter relate . 416 

416 See below, ch. 42. 


Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria. 

Chapter XXXIX . — Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria. 

But I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the emperor’s edict had 
convoked in the east, as a rival to that of Ariminum. It was at first determined that the 
bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly 
destroyed that city, prevented their being convened there. This happened in the consulate 417 

A 1 O 

of Tatian and Cerealis, on the 28th day of August. They were therefore planning to 
transfer the council to the neighboring city of Nicaea: but this plan was again altered, as it 
seemed more convenient to meet at Tarsus in Cilicia. Being dissatisfied with this arrangement 
also, they at last assembled themselves at Seleucia, surnamed Aspera, 419 a city of Isauria. 
This took place in the same year [in which the council of Ariminum was held] , under the 
consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, 420 the number of those convened being about 160. 
There was present on this occasion Leonas, an officer of distinction attached to the imperial 
household, before whom the emperor’s edict had enjoined that the discussion respecting 
the faith should be entered into. Lauricius also, the commander-in-chief of the troops in 
Isauria, was ordered to be there, to serve the bishops in such things as they might require. 
In the presence of these personages therefore, the bishops were there convened on the 27th 
of the month of September, and immediately began a discussion on the basis of the public 
records, shorthand writers being present to write down what each might say. Those who 
desire to learn the particulars of the several speeches, will find copious details of them in 
the collection of Sabinus; but we shall only notice the more important heads. On the first 
day of their being convened, Leonas ordered each one to propose what he thought fit: but 
those present said that no question ought to be agitated in the absence of those prelates who 
had not yet arrived; for Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and some 
others who were apprehensive of an impeachment for their misconduct, had not made their 
appearance. Macedonius pleaded indisposition, and failed to attend; Patrophilus said he 
had some trouble with his eyes, and that on this account it was needful for him to remain 
in the suburbs of Seleucia; and the rest offered various pretexts to account for their absence. 
When, however, Leonas declared that the subjects which they had met to consider must be 
entered on, notwithstanding the absence of these persons, the bishops replied that they 
could not proceed to the discussion of any question, until the life and conduct of the parties 
accused had been investigated: for Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebastia in Armenia, 

417 358 a.d. 

418 In this calamity Cecropius, the bishop of Nicomedia, perished, and the splendid cathedral of the city was 
ruined; both of which misfortunes were attributed by the heathen to the wrath of their gods. See Sozom. IV. 16. 

419 TpaxeTa, on account of the neighboring steep mountains. This Seleucia was the capital of Isauria. 

420 359 a.d. See, on this double council of Ariminum and Seleucia, Hefele, Hist, of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. 
p. 346-371. 


Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria. 

and some others, had been charged with misconduct on various grounds long before. A 
sharp contest arose in consequence of this demur; some affirming that cognizance ought 
first to be taken of all such accusations, and others denying that anything whatever should 
have precedence of matters of faith. The emperor’s orders contributed not a little to augment 
this dispute, inasmuch as letters of his were produced urging now this and now that as ne- 
cessary to be considered first. The dispute having arisen on this subject, a schism was thus 
made, and the Seleucian council was divided into two factions, one of which was headed by 
Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eudoxius of 
Antioch, who were supported by only about thirty- two other bishops. Of the opposite party, 
which was by far the more numerous, the principal were George of Laodicea in Syria, 
Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. It being determined 
by the majority to examine doctrinal matters first, the party of Acacius openly opposed the 
Nicene Creed, and wished to introduce another instead of it. The other faction , 421 which 
was considerably more numerous, concurred in all the decisions of the council of Nicsea, 
but criticised its adoption of the term homoousion. Accordingly they debated on this point, 
much being said on each side, until late in the evening, when Silvanus, who presided over 
the church at Tarsus, insisted with much vehemence of manner, ‘that there was no need of 
a new exposition of the faith; but that it was their duty rather to confirm that which was 
published at Antioch, at the consecration of the church in that place.’ On this declaration, 

Acacius and his partisans privately withdrew from the council; while the others, producing 
the creed composed at Antioch, read it, and then separated for that day. Assembling in the 
church of Seleucia on the day following, after having closed the doors, they again read the 
same creed, and ratified it by their signatures. At this time the readers and deacons present 
signed on behalf of certain absent bishops, who had intimated their acquiescence in its form. 

421 Cf Athan. de Synodd. 12. 

422 See chaps. 8 and 10. 


Acacius, Bishop of Ccesarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at. . . 

Chapter XL. — Acacius, Bishop of Ccesarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at 


Acacius and his adherents criticised what was done: because, that is to say, they closed 
the church doors and thus affixed their signatures; declaring that ‘all such secret transactions 
were justly to be suspected, and had no validity whatever.’ These objections he made because 
he was anxious to bring forward another exposition of the faith drawn up by himself, which 
he had already submitted to the governors Leonas and Lauricius, and was now intent on 
getting it alone confirmed and established, instead of that which had been subscribed. The 
second day was thus occupied with nothing else but exertions on his part to effect this object. 
On the third day Leonas endeavored to produce an amicable meeting of both parties; 
Macedonius of Constantinople, and also Basil of Ancyra, having arrived during its course. 
But when the Acacians found that both the parties had come to the same position, they re- 
fused to meet; saying that not only those who had before been deposed, but also such as 
were at present under any accusation, ought to be excluded from the assembly.’ And as after 
much cavilling on both sides, this opinion prevailed; those who lay under any charge went 
out of the council, and the party of Acacius entered in their places. Leonas then said that a 
document had been put into his hand by Acacius, to which he desired to call their attention: 
but he did not state that it was the drought of a creed, which in some particulars covertly, 
and in others unequivocally contradicted the former. When those present became silent, 
thinking that the document contained something else besides an exposition of a creed, the 
following creed composed by Acacius, together with its preamble, was read. 

’We having yesterday assembled by the emperor’s command at Seleucia, a city of 
Isauria, on the 27th day of September, exerted ourselves to the utmost, with all moderation, 
to preserve the peace of the church, and to determine doctrinal questions on prophetic and 
evangelical authority, so as to sanction nothing in the ecclesiastic confession of faith at 
variance with the sacred Scriptures, as our Emperor Constantius most beloved of God has 
ordered. But inasmuch as certain individuals in the Synod have acted injuriously toward 
several of us, preventing some from expressing their sentiments, and excluding others from 
the council against their wills; and at the same time have introduced such as have been de- 
posed, and persons who were ordained contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that the 
Synod has presented a scene of tumult and disorder, of which the most illustrious Leonas, 
the Comes, and the most eminent Lauricius, governor of the province, have been eye-wit- 
nesses, we are therefore under the necessity of making this declaration. That we do not re- 
pudiate the faith which was ratified at the consecration of the church at Antioch; “ for we 

423 Athanas. ( de Synodd. 29) gives the following portion of this creed apparently as the only declaration made 
by the council. 


Acacius, Bishop of Ccesarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at. . . 

give it our decided preference, because it received the concurrence of our fathers who were 
assembled there to consider some controverted points. Since, however, the terms homoousion 
and homoiousion have in time past troubled the minds of many, and still continue to disquiet 
them; and moreover that a new term has recently been coined by some who assert the 
anomoion of the Son to the Father: we reject the first two, as expressions which are not 
found in the Scriptures; but we utterly anathematize the last, and regard such as countenance 
its use, as alienated from the church. We distinctly acknowledge the homoion of the Son to 
the Father, in accordance with what the apostle has declared concerning him , 424 “Who is 
the image of the invisible God.” 

‘We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven 
and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only- 
begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were 
made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe 
that he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; 
that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into the 
heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge 
the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has 
denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure, according 
to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything 
contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.’ 

This was the declaration of faith proposed by Acacius, and subscribed by himself and 
as many as adhered to his opinion, the number of whom we have already given. When this 
had been read, Sophronius bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, thus expressed himself: 
‘If to express a separate opinion day after day, be received as the exposition of the faith, we 
shall never arrive at any accurate understanding of the truth.’ These were the words of 
Sophronius. And I firmly believe, that if the predecessors of these prelates, as well as their 
successors, had entertained similar sentiments in reference to the Nicene creed, all polem- 
ical debates would have been avoided; nor would the churches have been agitated by such 
violent and irrational disturbances. However let those j udge who are capable of understanding 
how these things are. At that time after many remarks on all sides had been made both in 
reference to this doctrinal statement, and in relation to the parties accused, the assembly 
was dissolved. On the fourth day they all again met in the same place, and resumed their 
proceedings in the same contentious spirit as before. On this occasion Acacius expressed 
himself in these words: ‘Since the Nicene creed has been altered not once only, but frequently, 

424 Col. i. 15. 


Acacius, Bishop of Ccesarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at. . . 

there is no hindrance to our publishing another at this time.’ To which Eleusius bishop of 
Cyzicus, replied: ‘The Synod is at present convened not to learn what it had no previous 
knowledge of, nor to receive a creed which it had not assented to before, but to confirm the 
faith of the fathers, from which it should never recede, either in life or death.’ Thus Eleusius 
opposing Acacius spoke meaning by ‘the faith of the fathers,’ that creed which had been 
promulgated at Antioch. But surely he too might have been fairly answered in this way: 
‘How is it O Eleusius, that you call those convened at Antioch “the fathers,” seeing that you 
do not recognize those who were their fathers? The framers of the Nicene creed, by whom 
the homoousian faith was acknowledged, have a far higher claim to the title of “the fathers”; 
both as having the priority in point of time, and also because those assembled at Antioch 
were by them invested with the sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned 
their own fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides. Besides 
how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those whose faith they pronounce 
unsound and impious? If those, however, who constituted the Nicene Synod had not the 
Holy Spirit which is imparted by the imposition of hands , 425 those at Antioch have not duly 
received the priesthood: for how could they have received it from those who had not the 
power of conferring it?’ Such considerations as these might have been submitted to Eleusius 
in reply to his objections. But they then proceeded to another question, connected with the 
assertion made by Acacius in his exposition of the faith, ‘that the Son was like the Father’; 
enquiring of one another in what this resemblance consisted. The Acacian party affirmed 
that the Son was like the Father as it respected his will only, and not his ‘substance’ or ‘es- 
sence’; but the rest maintained that the likeness extended to both essence and will. In alter- 
cations on this point, the whole day was consumed; and Acacius, being confuted by his own 
published works, in which he had asserted that ‘the Son is in all things like the Father,’ his 
opponents asked him ‘how do you now deny the likeness of the Son to the Father as to his 
“essence”?’ Acacius in reply said, that ‘no author, ancient or modern, was ever condemned 
out of his own writings.’ As they kept on their discussion on this matter to a most tedious 
extent, with much acrimonious feeling and subtlety of argument, but without any approach 
to unity of judgment, Leonas arose and dissolved the council: and this was the conclusion 
of the Synod at Seleucia. For on the following day [Leonas] being urged to do so would not 
again meet with them. ‘I have been deputed by the emperor,’ said he, ‘to attend a council 
where unanimity was expected to prevail: but since you can by no means come to a mutual 
understanding, I can no longer be present: go therefore to the church, if you please, and 
indulge in vain babbling there.’ The Acacian faction conceiving this decision to be advant- 
ageous to themselves, also refused to meet with the others. The adverse party left alone met 

425 See Chrysostom, Homilies 9 and 27, on Acts, and Horn. 1 ,on 2 Tim., for the belief of the ancient Church 
in the descent of the Holy Spirit on the ordained in and through ordination. 


Acacius, Bishop of Ccesarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at. . . 

in the church and requested the attendance of those who followed Acacius, that cognizance 
might be taken of the case of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem: for that prelate had been accused 
long before, on what grounds however I am unable to state. He had even been deposed, 
because owing to fear, he had not made his appearance during two whole years, after having 
been repeatedly summoned in order that the charges against him might be investigated. 
Nevertheless, when he was deposed, he sent a written notification to those who had con- 
demned him, that he should appeal to a higher jurisdiction: and to this appeal the emperor 
Constantius gave his sanction. Cyril was thus the first and indeed only clergyman who 
ventured to break through ecclesiastical usage, by becoming an appellant, in the way com- 
monly done in the secular courts of judicature : 426 and he was now present at Seleucia, ready 
to be put upon his trial; on this account the other bishops invited the Acacian party to take 
their places in the assembly, that in a general council a definite judgment might be pro- 
nounced on the case of those who were arraigned: for they cited others also charged with 
various misdemeanors to appear before them at the same time, who to protect themselves 
had sought refuge among the partisans of Acacius. When therefore that faction persisted 
in their refusal to meet, after being repeatedly summoned, the bishops deposed Acacius 
himself, together with George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, Theodulus of Chaeretapi in 
Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of the island of Mytilene, Leontius 
of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius who had formerly been bishop of Germanica, but had 
afterwards insinuated himself into the bishopric of Antioch in Syria. They also deposed 
Patrophilus for contumacy, in not having presented himself to answer a charge preferred 
against him by a presbyter named Dorotheus. These they deposed: they also excommunicated 
Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius; 
determining that they should not be restored to communion, until they made such a defense 
as would clear them from the imputations under which they lay. This being done, they ad- 
dressed explanatory letters to each of the churches whose bishops had been deposed. Anianus 
was then constituted bishop of Antioch instead of Eudoxius: but the Acacians having soon 
after apprehended him, he was delivered into the hands of Leonas and Lauricius, by whom 
he was sent into exile. The bishops who had ordained him being incensed on this account, 
lodged protests against the Acacian party with Leonas and Lauricius, in which they openly 
charged them with having violated the decisions of the Synod. Finding that no redress could 
be obtained by this means, they went to Constantinople to lay the whole matter before the 

426 He was the only one, inasmuch as the General Synod of Constantinople (381 a.d.) expressly forbade all 
appeals from the ecclesiastical to the civil courts, attaching severe penalties to the violation of its canon on this 
subject. Cf. Canon 6 of Council of Constantinople. Hefele, Hist, of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 364. 


On the Emperor's Return from the West, the Acacians assemble at Constantinople,... 

Chapter XLI. — On the Emperor’s Return from the West, the Acacians assemble at Con- 
stantinople, and confirm the Creed ofAriminum, after making Some Additions to it. 

And now the emperor returned from the West and appointed a prefect over Con- 
stantinople, Honoratus by name, having abolished the office of proconsul. But the Acacians 

being beforehand with the bishops, calumniated them to the emperor, persuading him not 
to admit the creed which they had proposed. This so annoyed the emperor that he resolved 
to disperse them; he therefore published an edict, commanding that such of them as were 
subject to fill certain public offices should be no longer exempted from the performance of 
the duties attached to them. For several of them were liable to be called on to occupy various 
official departments, connected both with the city magistracy, and in subordination to 
the presidents and governors of provinces . 429 While these were thus harassed the partisans 
of Acacius remained for a considerable time at Constantinople and held another Synod. 
Sending for the bishops at Bithynia, about fifty assembled on this occasion, among whom 
was Maris, bishop of Chalcedon: these confirmed the creed read at Ariminum to which the 
names of the consuls had been prefixed . 430 It would have been unnecessary to repeat it here, 
had there not been some additions made to it; but since that was done, it may be desirable 
to transcribe it in its new form . 431 

‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only- 
begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages, and before every beginning; through 
whom all things visible and invisible were made: who is the only-begotten born of the 
Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the 
Scriptures, and whose generation no one knows but the Father only that begat him. We 
know that this only-begotten Son of God, as sent of the Father, came down from the heavens, 
as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death: and that he was born of the Holy Spirit, 
and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with his disciples; 
and that after every dispensation had been fulfilled according to his Father’s will, he was 

427 On the distinction between the prefect and proconsul and the different functions of each, see Smith, 
Diction, of Greek and Roman Ant. The statement of Socrates here that Constantius first put Constantinople 
under a prefect is borne out by Athanasius’ mention of Donatus as proconsul of Europe, with Constantinople 
as chief city. 

428 The General Synod of Chalcedon, 451 a.d., in its seventh canon forbade, under pain of anathema, the 
mixing of the clerical office with political and worldly matters. 

429 The ra^£t<; here mentioned were classes of officials appointed under a sort of military law, to serve for a 
given length of time as agents of the presidents and governors of provinces. Cf. Justin. Cod. 12, tit. 52-59. 

430 Cf. chap. 37. 

431 Athanas. de Synodd. 30. 


On the Emperor's Return from the West, the Acacians assemble at Constantinople,... 

crucified and died, and was buried and descended into the lower parts of the earth, at whose 
presence hades itself trembled: who also arose from the dead on the third day, again conversed 
with his disciples, and after the completion of forty days was taken up into the heavens, and 
sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come in the last day, the day of the resur- 
rection, in his Father’s glory, to requite every one accord-to his works. [We believe] also in 
the Holy Spirit, whom he himself the only-begotten of God, Christ our Lord and God, 
promised to send to mankind as the Comforter, according as it is written, “the Spirit of 
truth”; whom he sent to them after he was received into the heavens. But since the term 
ousia [substance or essence ], which was used by the fathers in a very simple and intelligible 
sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of offense, we have thought 
proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of 
it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the 
substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the “subsistence” of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the 
Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures declare and teach. Let therefore all heresies 
which have been already condemned, or may have arisen of late, which are opposed to this 
exposition of the faith, be anathema.’ 

These things were recognized at that time at Constantinople. And now as we have at 
length wound our way through the labyrinth of all the various forms of faith, let us reckon 
the number of them. After that which was promulgated at Nicaea, two others were proposed 


at Antioch at the dedication of the church there. A third was presented to the Emperor 
in Gaul by Narcissus and those who accompanied him . 434 The fourth was sent by Eudoxius 
into Italy . 435 There were three forms of the creed published at Sirmium, one of which having 
the consuls’ names prefixed was read at Ariminum . 436 The Acacian party produced an 


eighth at Seleucia. The last was that of Constantinople, containing the prohibitory clause 

respecting the mention of ‘substance’ or ‘subsistence’ in relation to God. To this creed Ulfilas 
bishop of the Goths gave his assent, although he had previously adhered to that of Nicaea; 
for he was a disciple of Theophilus bishop of the Goths, who was present at the Nicene 
council, and subscribed what was there determined. Let this suffice on these subjects. 


John xv. 26. 


Chap. 10. 


Chap. 18. 


Chap. 19. 


Chaps. 30, 37. 


Chap. 41. 


On the Deposition of Macedonius, Eudoxius obtains the Bishopric of Cons... 

Chapter XLII. — On the Deposition of Macedonius, Eudoxius obtains the Bishopric of Con- 

Acacius, Eudoxius, and those at Constantinople who took part with them, became ex- 
ceedingly anxious that they also on their side might depose some of the opposite party. Now 
it should be observed that neither of the factions were influenced by religious considerations 
in making depositions, but by other motives: for although they did not agree respecting the 
faith, yet the ground of their reciprocal depositions was not error in doctrine. The Acacian 
party therefore availing themselves of the emperor’s indignation against others, and especially 
against Macedonius, which he was cherishing and anxious to vent, in the first place deposed 
Macedonius, both on account of his having occasioned so much slaughter, and also because 

A O O 

he had admitted to communion a deacon who had been found guilty of fornication. They 

then depose Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, for having baptized, and afterwards invested with 
the diaconate, a priest of Hercules at Tyre named Heraclius, who was known to have practiced 
magic arts . 439 A like sentence was pronounced against Basil, or Basilas, — as he was also 
called, — who had been constituted bishop of Ancyra instead of Marcellus: the causes assigned 
for this condemnation were, that he had unjustly imprisoned a certain individual, loaded 
him with chains, and put him to the torture; that he had traduced some persons; and that 
he had disturbed the churches of Africa by his epistles. Dracontius was also deposed, because 
he had left the Galatian church for that of Pergamos. Moreover they deposed, on various 
pretenses, Neonas bishop of Seleucia, the city in which the Synod had been convened, 
Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Elpidius of Satala, in Macedonia, and Cyril of 
Jerusalem, and others for various reasons. 

438 Cf. Apost. Catron, XXV. 

439 Cf. Tertull. deldol. IX.: Post evangelium nusquam invenies aut sophistas, aut Chaldceos, aut Incantatores, 
aut Conjectores, aut tnagos, nisi plane punitos. See also Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. XVI. 5. 


Of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia. 

Chapter XLIII . — Of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia. 

But Eustathius bishop of Sebastia in Armenia was not even permitted to make his defense; 
because he had been long before deposed by Eulalius, his own father, who was bishop of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia, for dressing in a style unbecoming the sacerdotal office . 440 Let it 
be noted that Meletius was appointed his successor, of whom we shall hereafter speak. Eu- 
stathius indeed was subsequently condemned by a Synod convened on his account at Gangra 
in Paphlagonia; he having, after his deposition by the council at Caesarea, done many things 
repugnant to the ecclesiastical canons. For he had ‘forbidden marriage ,’ 441 and maintained 
that meats were to be abstained from: he even separated many from their wives, and per- 
suaded those who disliked to assemble in the churches to commune at home. Under the 
pretext of piety, he also seduced servants from their masters. He himself wore the habit of 
a philosopher, and induced his followers to adopt a new and extraordinary garb, directing 
that the hair of women should be cropped. He permitted the prescribed fasts to be neglected, 
but recommended fasting on Sundays. In short, he forbade prayers to be offered in the 
houses of married persons: and declared that both the benediction and the communion of 
a presbyter who continued to live with a wife whom he might have lawfully married, while 
still a layman, ought to be shunned as an abomination. For doing and teaching these things 
and many others of a similar nature, a Synod convened, as we have said, at Gangra 442 in 
Paphlagonia deposed him, and anathematized his opinions. This, however, was done after- 
wards. But on Macedonius being ejected from the see of Constantinople, Eudoxius, who 
now looked upon the see of Antioch as secondary in importance, was promoted to the vacant 
bishopric; being consecrated by the Acacians, who in this instance cared not to consider 
that it was inconsistent with their former proceedings. For they who had deposed Dracon- 
tius because of his translation from Galatia to Pergamos, were clearly acting in contrariety 
to their own principles and decisions, in ordaining Eudoxius, who then made a second 
change. After this they sent their own exposition of the faith, in its corrected and supple- 
mentary form, to Arminium, ordering that all those who refused to sign it should be exiled 
on the authority of the emperor’s edict. They also informed such other prelates in the East 
as coincided with them in opinion of what they had done; and more especially Patrophilus 

440 On the prescribed dress of the clergy, and the punishment of those who did not constantly adopt it, see 
Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. VI. 4. 15. 

441 1 Tim. iv. 3. Cf. Euseb. H. E. IV. 29, on the earliest forms of expression against marriage in the Christian 
Church; also Apost. Canon, LI. and Augustine, Hcerr. XXV., XL., XL VI. See Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. XXII. 1. 

442 On Synod of Gangra, see Hefele, Elist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 325-339. Almost all the canons of 
the synod seem to be addressed against the teachings of Eustathius. The fourth canon is expressly on the celibacy 
of the clergy, as follows: ‘If any one maintains that, when a married priest offer the sacrifice, no one should take 
part in the service, let him be anathema.’ 


Of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia. 

bishop of Scythopolis, who on leaving Seleucia had proceeded directly to his own city. Eu- 
doxius having been constituted bishop of the imperial city, the great church named Sophia 
was at that time consecrated, 443 in the tenth consulate 444 of Constantius, and the third of 
Julian Caesar, on the 15th day of February. It was while Eudoxius occupied this see, that he 
first uttered that sentence which is still everywhere current, ‘The Father is impious, the Son 
is pious.’ When the people seemed startled by this expression, and a disturbance began to 
be made, ‘Be not troubled,’ said he, ‘on account of what I have just said: for the Father is 
impious, because he worships no person; but the Son is pious because he worships the 
Father.’ Eudoxius having said this, the tumult was appeased, and great laughter was excited 
in the church: and this saying of his continues to be a jest, even in the present day. The 
heresiarchs indeed frequently devised such subtle phrases as these, and by them rent the 
church asunder. Thus was the Synod at Constantinople terminated. 

443 This was evidently the second consecration of the earlier church of St. Sophia (cf. I. 16, II. 6); the first 
consecration was celebrated in 326 a.d. Later, the structure was destroyed in a fire, in connection with a popular 
uprising; and the great church of St. Sophia, at present a Mohammedan mosque, was erected by Justinian, with 
Isidore of Miletus and Anthimius of Tralles as architects. 

444 360 a.d. 


Of Meletius Bishop of Antioch. 

Chapter XLIV. — Of Meletius 445 Bishop of Antioch. 

It becomes us now to speak of Meletius, who, as we have recently observed, was created 
bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, after the deposition of Eustathius; from Sebastia he was 
transferred to Beroea, a city of Syria. Being present at the Synod of Seleucia, he subscribed 
the creed set forth there by Acacius, and immediately returned thence to Beroea. When the 
convention of the Synod at Constantinople was held, the people of Antioch finding that 
Eudoxius, captivated by the magnificence of the see of Constantinople, had contemned their 
church, they sent for Meletius, and invested him with the bishopric of the church at Antioch. 
Now he at first avoided all doctrinal questions, confining his discourses to moral subjects; 
but subsequently he expounded to his auditors the Nicene creed, and asserted the doctrine 
of the homoousion. The emperor being informed of this, ordered that he should be sent into 
exile; and caused Euzoius, who had before been deposed together with Arius, to be installed 
bishop of Antioch in his stead. Such, however, as were attached to Meletius, separated 
themselves from the Arian congregation, and held their assemblies apart: nevertheless, those 
who originally embraced the homoousian opinion would not communicate with them, be- 
cause Meletius had been ordained by the Arians, and his adherents had been baptized by 
them. Thus was the Antiochian church divided, even in regard to those whose views on 
matters of faith exactly corresponded. Meanwhile the emperor getting intelligence that the 
Persians were preparing to undertake another war against the Romans, repaired in great 
haste to Antioch. 

445 The name has been written ‘Melitius’ thus far, but is found as ‘Meletius’ from this point, and through Bk. 
III. Cf. Euseb. H. E. VII. 32. 


The Heresy of Macedonius. 

Chapter XLV. — The Heresy of Macedonius. 

Macedonius on being ejected from Constantinople, bore his condemnation ill and be- 
came restless; he therefore associated himself with the other faction that had deposed Acacius 
and his party at Seleucia, and sent a deputation to Sophronius and Eleusius, to encourage 
them to adhere to that creed which was first promulgated at Antioch, and afterwards con- 
firmed at Seleucia, proposing to give it the counterfeit 446 name of the ‘homoiousian creed 447 
By this means he drew around him a great number of adherents, who from him are still 
denominated ‘Macedonians.’ And although such as dissented from the Acacians at the 
Seleucian Synod had not previously used the term homoiousios, yet from that period they 
distinctly asserted it. There was, however, a popular report that this term did not originate 
with Macedonius, but was the invention rather of Marathonius, who a little before had been 
set over the church at Nicomedia; on which account the maintainers of this doctrine were 
also called ‘Marathonians.’ To this party Eustathius joined himself, who for the reasons before 
stated had been ejected from the church at Sebastia. But when Macedonius began to deny 
the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, Eustathius said: ‘I can neither admit that the 
Holy Spirit is God, nor can I dare affirm him to be a creature.’ For this reason those who 
hold the homoousion of the Son call these heretics ‘Pneumatomachi. ,44S By what means 
these Macedonians became so numerous in the Hellespont, I shall state in its proper place . 449 
The Acacians meanwhile became extremely anxious that another Synod should be convened 
at Antioch, in consequence of having changed their mind respecting their former assertion 
of the likeness ‘in all things’ of the Son to the Father. A small number of them therefore as- 
sembled in the following consulate 450 which was that of Taurus and Florentius, at Antioch 
in Syria, where the emperor was at that time residing, Euzoius being bishop. A discussion 
was then renewed on some of those points which they had previously determined, in the 
course of which they declared that the term ‘homoios’ ought to be erased from the form of 
faith which had been published both at Ariminum and Constantinople; and they no longer 
concealed but openly declared that the Son was altogether unlike the Father, not merely in 
relation to his essence, but even as it respected his will; asserting boldly also, as Arius had 
already done, that he was made of nothing. Those in that city who favored the heresy of 
Aetius, gave their assent to this opinion; from which circumstance in addition to the general 

446 Jtapaaripoc; ; just as a counterfeit coin has the appearance of the genuine, and is meant to deceive those 
who do not investigate its genuineness, so the term ‘homoioousios’ (opotoouatoi; ), the author implies, was meant 
to deceive the popular ear by its likeness to the genuine ‘homoousios.’ 

447 See Theodoret, H. E. II. 6. 

448 Ilveuparopdxoi , lit. ‘active enemies of the Spirit.’ 

449 1. 4. 

361 a.d. 



The Heresy of Macedonius. 

appellation of Arians, they were also termed ‘Anomoeans ,’ 451 and ‘Exucontians ,’ 452 by those 
at Antioch who embraced the homoousian, who nevertheless were at that time divided 
among themselves on account of Meletius, as I have before observed. Being therefore 
questioned by them, how they dared to affirm that the Son is unlike the Father, and has his 
existence from nothing, after having acknowledged him ‘God of God’ in their former creed? 
they endeavored to elude this objection by such fallacious subterfuges as these. ‘The expres- 
sion, “God of God,”’ said they, ‘is to be understood in the same sense as the words of the 
apostle , 453 “but all things of God.” Wherefore the Son is of God, as being one of these all 
things: and it is for this reason the words “according to the Scriptures” are added in the 
draught of the creed.’ The author of this sophism was George bishop of Laodicea, who being 
unskilled in such phrases, was ignorant of the manner in which Origen had formerly ex- 
plained these peculiar expressions of the apostle, having thoroughly investigated the matter. 
But notwithstanding these evasive cavilings, they were unable to bear the reproach and 
contumely they had drawn upon themselves, and fell back upon the creed which they had 
before put forth at Constantinople; and so each one retired to his own district. George re- 
turning to Alexandria, resumed his authority over the churches there, Athanasius still not 
having made his appearance. Those in that city who were opposed to his sentiments he 
persecuted; and conducting himself with great severity and cruelty, he rendered himself 
extremely odious to the people. At Jerusalem Arrenius 454 was placed over the church instead 
of Cyril: we may also remark that Heraclius was ordained bishop there after him, and after 
him Hilary. At length, however, Cyril returned to Jerusalem, and was again invested with 
the presidency over the church there. About the same time another heresy sprang up, which 
arose from the following circumstance. 

451 ’Avopotot, because they held that the essence of the Son was ‘dissimilar,’ avopoioc;, to that of the Father. 

452 ’E^ouKOvrtoi , from the phrase ouk ovrwv = ‘from [things] not existing,’ because they asserted that 
the Son was made ex nihilo. The term might be put roughly in some such form as ‘Fromnothingians.’ 

453 1 Cor. xi. 12. 

454 Written ‘Errenius’ in the Allat. ms. 


Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy. 

Chapter XLVI . — Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy . 455 

There were two men of the same name at Laodicea in Syria, a father and son: their name 
was Apollinaris; the former of them was a presbyter, and the latter a reader in that church. 
Both taught Greek literature, the father grammar, and the son rhetoric. The father was a 
native of Alexandria, and at first taught at Berytus, but afterwards removed to Laodicea, 
where he married, and the younger Apollinaris was born. They were contemporaries of 
Epiphanius the sophist, and being true friends they became intimate with him; but Theodotus 
bishop of Laodicea, fearing that such communication should pervert their principles, and 
lead them into paganism, forbade their associating with him: they, however, paid but little 
attention to this prohibition, their familiarity with Epiphanius being still continued. George, 
the successor of Theodotus, also endeavored to prevent their conversing with Epiphanius; 
but not being able in any way to persuade them on this point, he excommunicated them. 
The younger Apollinaris regarding this severe procedure as an act of injustice, and relying 
on the resources of his rhetorical sophistry, originated a new heresy, which was named after 
its inventor, and still has many supporters. Nevertheless some affirm that it was not for the 
reason above assigned that they dissented from George, but because they saw the unsettled- 
ness and inconsistency of his profession of faith; since he sometimes maintained that the 
Son is like the Father, in accordance with what had been determined in the Synod at Seleucia, 
and at other times countenanced the Arian view. They therefore made this a pretext for 
separation from him: but as no one followed their example, they introduced a new form of 
doctrine, and at first they asserted that in the economy of the incarnation, God the Word 
assumed a human body without a soul. Afterwards, as if changing mind, they retracted, 
admitting that he took a soul indeed, but that it was an irrational one, God the Word himself 
being in the place of a mind. Those who followed them and bear their name at this day affirm 
that this is their only point of distinction [from the Catholics] ; for they recognize the con- 
substantiality of the persons in the Trinity. But we will make further mention of the two 
Apollinares in the proper place . 456 

455 Cf. Sozom. VI. 25; Schaff, Hist, of the Christ. Ch., Vol. III. p. 708 seq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, III. p. 1 19-229. 

456 III. 16. 


Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantins. 

Chapter XLVII . — Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantius. 

While the Emperor Constantius continued his residence at Antioch, Julian Caesar en- 
gaged with an immense army of barbarians in the Gauls, and obtaining the victory over 
them, he became extremely popular among the soldiery and was proclaimed emperor by 
them. When this was made known, the Emperor Constantius was affected most painfully; 
he was therefore baptized by Euzoius, and immediately prepared to undertake an expedition 
against Julian. On arriving at the frontiers of Cappadocia and Cilicia, his excessive agitation 
of mind produced apoplexy, which terminated his life at Mopsucrene, in the consulate of 
Taurus and Florentius, 457 on the 3d of November. This was in the first year of the 285th 
Olympiad. Constantius had lived forty-five years, having reigned thirty-eight years; thirteen 
of which he was his father’s colleague in the empire, and after his father’s death for twenty- 
five years [sole emperor], the history of which latter period is contained in this book. 

457 361 a.d. 


Book III 

Book III. 

Chapter I. — Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy 

to Paganism. 

The Emperor Constantius died on the frontiers of Cilicia on the 3d of November, during 
the consulate of Taurus and Florentius; Julian leaving the western parts of the empire about 
the 1 1th of December following, under the same consulate, came to Constantinople, where 


he was proclaimed emperor. And as I must needs speak of the character of this prince 
who was eminently distinguished for his learning, let not his admirers expect that I should 
attempt a pompous rhetorical style, as if it were necessary to make the delineation correspond 
with the dignity of the subject: for my object being to compile a history of the Christian re- 
ligion, it is both proper in order to the being better understood, and consistent with my 
original purpose, to maintain a humble and unaffected style. 459 However, it is proper to 
describe his person, birth, education, and the manner in which he became possessed of the 
sovereignty; and in order to do this it will be needful to enter into some antecedent details. 
Constantine who gave Byzantium his own name, had two brothers named Dalmatius and 
Constantius, the offspring of the same father, but by a different mother. The former of these 
had a son who bore his own name: the latter had two sons, Gallus and Julian. Now as on 
the death of Constantine who founded Constantinople, the soldiery had put the younger 
brother Dalmatius to death, the lives of his two orphan children were also endangered: but 
a disease which threatened to be fatal preserved Gallus from the violence of his father’s 
murderers; while the tenderness of Julian’s age — for he was only eight years old at the 
time — protected him. The emperor’s jealousy toward them having been gradually subdued, 
Gallus attended the schools at Ephesus in Ionia, in which country considerable hereditary 
possessions had been left them. And Julian, when he was grown up, pursued his studies at 
Constantinople, going constantly to the palace, where the schools then were, in plain clothes, 
under the superintendence of the eunuch Mardonius. In grammar Nicocles the Lacaedemoni- 
an was his instructor; and Ecebolius the Sophist, who was at that time a Christian, taught 
him rhetoric: for the emperor had made the provision that he should have no pagan masters, 
lest he should be seduced to the pagan superstitions. For Julian was a Christian at the begin- 
ning. His proficiency in literature soon became so remarkable, that it began to be said that 
he was capable of governing the Roman empire; and this popular rumor becoming generally 
diffused, greatly disquieted the emperor’s mind, so that he had him removed from the Great 
City to Nicomedia, forbidding him at the same time to frequent the school of Libanius the 

458 December, 361 a.d. This proclamation must be distinguished from the one in Gaul (II. 47); the latter was 
the proclamation by the army, and occurred during the lifetime of Constantius. 

459 Cf. I. 1. 


Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy... 

Syrian Sophist. For Libanius having been driven at that time from Constantinople, by a 
combination of the educators there, had retired to Nicomedia, where he opened a school. 
Here he gave vent to his indignation against the educators in the treatise he composed re- 
garding them. Julian was, however, interdicted from being his auditor, because Libanius 
was a pagan in religion: nevertheless he privately procured his orations, which he not only 
greatly admired, but also frequently and with close study perused. As he was becoming very 
expert in the rhetorical art, Maximus the philosopher arrived at Nicomedia (not the Byz- 
antine, Euclid’s father) but the Ephesian, whom the emperor Valentinian afterwards caused 
to be executed as a practicer of magic. This took place later; at that time the only thing that 
attracted him to Nicomedia was the fame of Julian. From him [Julian] received, in addition 
to the principles of philosophy, his own religious sentiments, and a desire to possess the 
empire. When these things reached the ears of the emperor, Julian, between hope and fear, 
became very anxious to lull the suspicions which had been awakened, and therefore began 
to assume the external semblance of what he once was in reality. He was shaved to the very 
skin , 460 and pretended to live a monastic life: and while in private he pursued his philosoph- 
ical studies, in public he read the sacred writings of the Christians, and moreover was con- 
stituted a reader 461 in the church of Nicomedia. Thus by these specious pretexts he succeeded 
in averting the emperor’s displeasure. Now he did all this from fear, but he by no means 
abandoned his hope; telling his friends that happier times were not far distant, when he 
should possess the imperial sway. In this condition of things his brother Gallus having been 
created Caesar, on his way to the East came to Nicomedia to see him. But when not long 
after this Gallus was slain, Julian was suspected by the emperor; wherefore he directed that 
a guard should be set over him: he soon, however, found means of escaping from them, and 
fleeing from place to place he managed to be in safety. At last the Empress Eusebia having 
discovered his retreat, persuaded the emperor to leave him uninjured, and permit him to 
go to Athens to pursue his philosophical studies. From thence — to be brief— the emperor 
recalled him, and after created him Caesar; in addition to this, uniting him in marriage to 
his own sister Helen, he sent him against the barbarians. For the barbarians whom the Em- 
peror Constantius had engaged as auxiliary forces against the tyrant Magnentius, having 
proved of no use against the usurper, were beginning to pillage the Roman cities. And 
inasmuch as he was young he ordered him to undertake nothing without consulting the 
other military chiefs. 

Now these generals having obtained such authority, became lax in their duties, and the 
barbarians in consequence strengthened themselves. Julian perceiving this allowed the 

460 See Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. VI. 4, end. 

461 The ‘reader,’ dvayvcdarric; , lector, was commonly a young man possessed of a good voice, who read the 
Scriptures from the pulpit or reading-desk (not the altar). Bennett, Christ. Archceol. p. 374. 


Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy... 

commanders to give themselves up to luxury and revelling, but exerted himself to infuse 
courage into the soldiery, offering a stipulated reward to any one who should kill a barbarian. 
This measure effectually weakened the enemy and at the same time conciliated to himself 
the affections of the army. It is reported that as he was entering a town a civic crown which 
was suspended between two pillars fell upon his head, which it exactly fitted: upon which 
all present gave a shout of admiration, regarding it as a presage of his one day becoming 
emperor. Some have affirmed that Constantius sent him against the barbarians, in the hope 
that he would perish in an engagement with them. I know not whether those who say this 
speak the truth; but it certainly is improbable that he should have first contracted so near 
an alliance with him, and then have sought his destruction to the prejudice of his own in- 
terests. Let each form his own judgment of the matter. Julian’s complaint to the emperor 
of the inertness of his military officers procured for him a coadjutor in the command more 
in sympathy with his own ardor; and by their combined efforts such an assault was made 
upon the barbarians, that they sent him an embassy, assuring him that they had been ordered 
by the emperor’s letters, which were produced, to march into the Roman territories. But he 
cast the ambassador into prison, and vigorously attacking the forces of the enemy, totally 
defeated them; and having taken their king prisoner, he sent him alive to Constantius. Im- 
mediately after this brilliant success he was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers; and inasmuch 
as there was no imperial crown at hand, one of his guards took the chain which he wore 
about his own neck, and bound it around Julian’s head. Thus Julian became emperor: but 
whether he subsequently conducted himself as became a philosopher, let my readers determ- 
ine. For he neither entered into communication with Constantius by an embassy, nor paid 
him the least homage in acknowledgment of past favors; but constituting other governors 
over the provinces, he conducted everything just as it pleased him. Moreover, he sought to 
bring Constantius into contempt, by reciting publicly in every city the letters which he had 
written to the barbarians; and thus having rendered the inhabitants of these places disaffected, 
they were easily induced to revolt from Constantius to himself. After this he no longer wore 
the mask of Christianity, but everywhere opened the pagan temples, offering sacrifice to the 
idols; and designating himself ‘Pontifex Maximus ,’ 462 gave permission to such as would to 
celebrate their superstitious festivals. In this manner he managed to excite a civil war against 
Constantius; and thus, as far as he was concerned, he would have involved the empire in all 
the disastrous consequences of a war. For this philosopher’s aim could not have been attained 
without much bloodshed: but God, in the sovereignty of his own councils, checked the fury 
of these antagonists without detriment to the state, by the removal of one of them. For when 
Julian arrived among the Thracians, intelligence was brought him that Constantius was 

462 See Smith, Diet, of Greek and Rom. Antiq. See also, on sacrificing to idols as a sign of apostacy, Bingham, 
Eccl. Antiq. XVI. iv. 5. 


Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy... 

dead; and thus was the Roman empire at that time preserved from the intestine strife that 
threatened it. Julian forthwith made his public entry into Constantinople; and considered 
with himself how he might best conciliate the masses and secure popular favor. Accordingly 
he had recourse to the following measures: he knew that Constantius had rendered himself 
odious to the defenders of the homoousian faith by having driven them from the churches, 
and proscribed their bishops . 463 He was also aware that the pagans were extremely discon- 
tented because of the prohibitions which prevented their sacrificing to their gods, and were 
very anxious to get their temples opened, with liberty to exercise their idolatrous rites. In 
fact, he was sensible that while both these classes secretly entertained rancorous feelings 
against his predecessor, the people in general were exceedingly exasperated by the violence 
of the eunuchs, and especially by the rapacity of Eusebius the chief officer of the imperial 
bed-chamber. Under these circumstances he treated all parties with subtlety: with some he 
dissimulated; others he attached to himself by conferring obligations upon them, for he was 
fond of affecting beneficence; but to all in common he manifested his own predilection for 
the idolatry of the heathens. And first in order to brand the memory of Constantius by 
making him appear to have been cruel toward his subjects, he recalled the exiled bishops, 
and restored to them their confiscated estates. He next commanded the suitable agents to 
see that the pagan temples should be opened without delay. Then he directed that such in- 
dividuals as had been victims of the extortionate conduct of the eunuchs, should receive 
back the property of which they had been plundered. Eusebius, the chief of the imperial 
bed-chamber, he punished with death, not only on account of the injuries he had inflicted 
on others, but because he was assured that it was through his machinations that his brother 
Gallus had been killed. The body of Constantius he honored with an imperial funeral, but 
expelled the eunuchs, barbers, and cooks from the palace. The eunuchs he dispensed with, 
because they were unnecessary in consequence of his wife’s decease, as he had resolved not 
to marry again; the cooks, because he maintained a very simple table; and the barbers, because 
he said one was sufficient for a great many persons. These he dismissed for the reasons 
given; he also reduced the majority of the secretaries to their former condition, and appointed 
for those who were retained a salary befitting their office. The mode of public traveling 464 
and conveyance of necessaries he also reformed, abolishing the use of mules, oxen, and asses 
for this purpose, and permitting horses only to be so employed. These various retrenchments 
were highly lauded by some few, but strongly reprobated by all others, as tending to bring 
the imperial dignity into contempt, by stripping it of those appendages of pomp and mag- 
nificence which exercise so powerful an influence over the minds of the vulgar. Not only 

463 See II. 7, 13, 16, &c. 

464 It is difficult to determine in what particulars the improvements mentioned here were made. Gregory 
Nazianzen, Contra Julianum, I. lxxv., confesses that Julian had made reforms in the matter. 


Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy... 

so, but at night he was accustomed to sit up composing orations which he afterwards de- 
livered in the senate: though in fact he was the first and only emperor since the time of Julius 
Caesar who made speeches in that assembly. To those who were eminent for literary attain- 
ments, he extended the most flattering patronage, and especially to those who were profes- 
sional philosophers; in consequence of which, abundance of pretenders to learning of this 
sort resorted to the palace from all quarters, wearing their palliums, being more conspicuous 
for their costume than their erudition. These impostors, who invariably adopted the religious 
sentiments of their prince, were all inimical to the welfare of the Christians; and Julian 
himself, whose excessive vanity prompted him to deride all his predecessors in a book which 
he wrote entitled The Caesars, was led by the same haughty disposition to compose treatises 
against the Christians also . 465 The expulsion of the cooks and barbers is in a manner becom- 
ing a philosopher indeed, but not an emperor; but ridiculing and caricaturing of others is 
neither the part of the philosopher nor that of the emperor: for such personages ought to 
be superior to the influence of jealousy and detraction. An emperor may be a philosopher 
in all that regards moderation and self-control; but should a philosopher attempt to imitate 
what might become an emperor, he would frequently depart from his own principles. We 
have thus briefly spoken of the Emperor Julian, tracing his extraction, education, temper 
of mind, and the way in which he became invested with the imperial power. 

465 See chap. 23. 


Of the Sedition excited at Alexandria, and how George was slain. 

Chapter II .—Of the Sedition excited at Alexandria, and how George was slain. 

It is now proper to mention what took place in the churches under the same [emperor] . 
A great disturbance occurred at Alexandria in consequence of the following circumstance. 
There was a place in that city which had long been abandoned to neglect and filth, wherein 
the pagans had formerly celebrated their mysteries, and sacrificed human beings to Mithra . 466 
This being empty and otherwise useless, Constantius had granted to the church of the Alex- 
andrians; and George wishing to erect a church on the site of it, gave directions that the 
place should be cleansed. In the process of clearing it, an adytum 467 of vast depth was dis- 
covered which unveiled the nature of their heathenish rites: for there were found there the 
skulls of many persons of all ages, who were said to have been immolated for the purpose 
of divination by the inspection of entrails, when the pagans performed these and such like 
magic arts whereby they enchanted the souls of men. The Christians on discovering these 
abominations in the adytum of the Mithreum, went forth eagerly to expose them to the view 
and execration of all; and therefore carried the skulls throughout the city, in a kind of tri- 
umphal procession, for the inspection of the people. When the pagans of Alexandria beheld 
this, unable to bear the insulting character of the act, they became so exasperated, that they 
assailed the Christians with whatever weapon chanced to come to hand, in their fury des- 
troying numbers of them in a variety of ways: some they killed with the sword, others with 
clubs and stones; some they strangled with ropes, others they crucified, purposely inflicting 
this last kind of death in contempt of the cross of Christ: most of them they wounded; and 
as it generally happens in such a case, neither friends nor relatives were spared, but friends, 
brothers, parents, and children imbrued their hands in each other’s blood. Wherefore the 
Christians ceased from cleansing the Mithreum: the pagans meanwhile having dragged 
George out of the church, fastened him to a camel, and when they had torn him to pieces, 

A /TO 

they burnt him together with the camel. 

466 The friendly or propitious divinity of the Persian theology; hence identified with the light and life-giving 

467 The secret or innermost sanctuary of the temple, where none but priests were permitted to enter; afterwards 
applied to any secret place. 

468 This George is, according to some authorities, the St. George of the legend. In its Arian form the legend 
represents St. George as warring against the wizard Athanasius; later, the wizard was transformed to a dragon, 
and George to an armed knight slaying the dragon. On other forms and features of the legend, see Smith & 
Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biogr., Georgius (43). 


The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes the Alexandrians. . . 

Chapter III. — The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes the Alexandrians by 


The emperor being highly indignant at the assassination of George, wrote to the citizens 
of Alexandria, rebuking their violence in the strongest terms. A report was circulated that 
those who detested him because of Athanasius, perpetrated this outrage upon George: but 
as for me I think it is undoubtedly true that such as cherish hostile feelings against particular 
individuals are often found identified with popular commotions; yet the emperor’s letter 
evidently attaches the blame to the populace, rather than to any among the Christians. 
George, however, was at that time, and had for some time previously been, exceedingly ob- 
noxious to all classes, which is sufficient to account for the burning indignation of the 
multitude against him. That the emperor charges the people with the crime may be seen 
from his letter which was expressed in the following terms. 

Emperor Caesar Julian Maximus Augustus to the Citizens of Alexandria . 469 

Even if you have neither respect for Alexander the founder of your city, nor, what is 
more, for that great and most holy god Serapis; yet how is it you have made no account not 
only of the universal claims of humanity and social order, but also of what is due to us, to 
whom all the gods, and especially the mighty Serapis, have assigned the empire of the world, 
for whose cognizance therefore it became you to reserve all matters of public wrong? But 
perhaps the impulse of rage and indignation, which taking possession of the mind, too often 
stimulate it to the most atrocious acts, has led you astray. It seems, however, that when your 
fury had in some degree moderated, you aggravated your culpability by adding a most 
heinous offense to that which had been committed under the excitement of the moment: 
nor were you, although but the common people, ashamed to perpetrate those very acts on 
account of which you justly detested them. By Serapis I conjure you tell me, for what unjust 
deed were ye so indignant at George? You will perhaps answer, it was because he exasperated 
Constantius of blessed memory against you: because he introduced an army into the sacred 
city: because in consequence the governor 470 of Egypt despoiled the god’s most holy temple 
of its images, votive offerings, and such other consecrated apparatus as it contained; who, 
when ye could not endure the sight of such a foul desecration, but attempted to defend the 
god from sacrilegious hands, or rather to hinder the pillage of what had been consecrated 
to his service, in contravention of all justice, law, and piety, dared to send armed bands 
against you. This he probably did from his dreading George more than Constantius: but he 
would have consulted better for his own safety had he not been guilty of this tyrannical 
conduct, but persevered in his former moderation toward you. Being on all these accounts 

469 Julian, Ep. 10. 

470 Artemius, whom the Emperor Julian afterwards beheaded for desecrating the pagan temple. 


The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes the Alexandrians. . . 

enraged against George as the adversary of the gods, you have again polluted your sacred 
city; whereas you ought to have impeached him before the judges. For had you thus acted, 
neither murder, nor any other unlawful deed would have been committed; but justice being 
equitably dispensed, would have preserved you innocent of these disgraceful excesses, while 
it brought on him the punishment due to his impious crimes. Thus too, in short, the insolence 
of those would have been curbed who contemn the gods, and respect neither cities of such 
magnitude, nor so flourishing a population; but make the barbarities they practice against 
them the prelude, as it were, of their exercise of power. Compare therefore this my present 
letter, with that which I wrote you some time since. With what high commendation did I 
then greet you! But now, by the immortal gods, with an equal disposition to praise you I 
am unable to do so on account of your heinous misdoings. The people have had the audacity 
to tear a man in pieces, like dogs; nor have they been subsequently ashamed of this inhuman 
procedure, nor desirous of purifying their hands from such pollution, that they may stretch 
them forth in the presence of the gods undefiled by blood. You will no doubt be ready to 
say that George justly merited this chastisement; and we might be disposed perhaps to admit 
that he deserved still more acute tortures. Should you farther affirm that on your account 
he was worthy of these sufferings, even this might also be granted. But should you add that 
it became you to inflict the vengeance due to his offenses, that I could by no means acquiesce 
in; for you have laws to which it is the duty of every one of you to be subject, and to evince 
your respect for both publicly, as well as in private. If any individual should transgress those 
wise and salutary regulations which were originally constituted for the well-being of the 
community, does that absolve the rest from obedience to them? It is fortunate for you, ye 
Alexandrians, that such an atrocity has been perpetrated in our reign, who, by reason of 
our reverence for the gods, and on account of our grandfather and uncle 471 whose name 
we bear, and who governed Egypt and your city, still retain a fraternal affection for you. 
Assuredly that power which will not suffer itself to be disrespected, and such a government 
as is possessed of a vigorous and healthy constitution, could not connive at such unbridled 
licentiousness in its subjects, without unsparingly purging out the dangerous distemper by 
the application of remedies sufficiently potent. We shall however in your case, for the reasons 
already assigned, restrict ourselves to the more mild and gentle medicine of remonstrance 
and exhortation; to the which mode of treatment we are persuaded ye will the more readily 
submit, inasmuch as we understand ye are Greeks by original descent, and also still preserve 
in your memory and character the traces of the glory of your ancestors. Let this be published 
to our citizens of Alexandria. 

471 Philostorgius (VII. 10) calls this Julian ‘the governor of the East, who was the uncle on the maternal side 
of Julian the Apostate.’ Sozomen also (V. 7 and 8) and Theodoret ( H . E. III. 12, 13) furnish information regarding 
him, as well as Ammianus Marcellius XXIII. i. Cf. also Julian, Epist. XIII. (Spanheim, p. 382). 


The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes the Alexandrians. . . 

Such was the emperor’s letter. 


On the Death of George, Athanasius returns to Alexandria, and takes Possession... 

Chapter IV. — On the Death of George, Athanasius returns to Alexandria, and takes Possession 
of his See. 

Not long after this, Athanasius returning from his exile, was received with great joy by 
the people of Alexandria. They expelled at that time the Arians from the churches, and re- 
stored Athanasius to the possession of them. The Arians meanwhile assembling themselves 
in low and obscure buildings, ordained Lucius to supply the place of George. Such was the 
state of things at that time at Alexandria. 


Of Lucifer and Eusebius. 

Chapter V . — Of Lucifer and Eusebius. 


About the same time Lucifer and Eusebius were by an imperial order, recalled from 
banishment out of the Upper Thebais; the former being bishop of Carala, a city of Sardinia, 

A r 7'l 

the latter of Vercellae, a city of the Ligurians in Italy, as I have said previously. These two 
prelates therefore consulted together on the most effectual means of preventing the neglected 
canons 474 and discipline of the church from being in future violated and despised. 

472 Theodoret, H. E. Ill, 4, mentions Hilarius, Astenius, and some other bishops who were at this time recalled 
from exile by Julian’s edict, and joined Lucifer and Eusebius in these deliberations about restoring the authority 
of the canons and correcting abuses in the church. 

473 Cf. II. 36. 

474 More especially the canons of the Council of Nicaea. 


Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus. 

Chapter VI . — Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus. 

It was decided therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to 
Alexandria, that by assembling a Synod in conjunction with Athanasius, they might confirm 
the doctrines of the church. Lucifer sent a deacon as his representative, by whom he pledged 
himself to assent to whatever the Synod might decree; but he himself went to Antioch, where 
he found the church in great disorder, the people not being agreed among themselves. For 
not only did the Arian heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoius, divide the church, 
but, as we before said , 475 the followers of Meletius also, from attachment to their teacher, 
separated themselves from those with whom they agreed in sentiment. When therefore 
Lucifer had constituted Paulinus their bishop, he again departed. 

475 II. 44. 


By the Co-operation of Eusebius and Athanasius a Synod is held at Alexandria, .. . 

Chapter VII. — By the Co-operation of Eusebius and Athanasius a Synod is held at Alexandria, 
wherein the Trinity is declared to be Consubstantial. 

As soon as Eusebius reached Alexandria, he in concert with Athanasius immediately 
convoked a Synod. The bishops assembled on this occasion out of various cities, took into 
consideration many subjects of the utmost importance. They asserted the divinity of the 
Holy Spirit 476 and comprehended him in the consubstantial Trinity: they also declared that 
the Word in being made man, assumed not only flesh, but also a soul, in accordance with 
the views of the early ecclesiastics. For they did not introduce any new doctrine of their own 
devising into the church, but contented themselves with recording their sanction of those 
points which ecclesiastical tradition has insisted on from the beginning, and wise Christians 
have demonstratively taught. Such sentiments the ancient fathers have uniformly maintained 
in all their controversial writings. Irenaeus, Clemens, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion 
who presided over the church at Antioch, assure us in their several works, that it was the 
generally received opinion that Christ in his incarnation was endowed with a soul. Moreover, 
the Synod convened on account of Beryllus bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, recognized 
the same doctrine in their letter to that prelate. Origen also everywhere in his extant works 
accepts that the Incarnate God took on himself a human soul. But he more particularly ex- 
plains this mystery in the ninth volume of his Comments upon Genesis, where he shows that 
Adam and Eve were types of Christ and the church. That holy man Pamphilus, and Eusebius 
who was surnamed after him, are trustworthy witnesses on this subject: both these witnesses 
in their joint life of Origen, and admirable defense of him in answer to such as were preju- 
diced against him, prove that he was not the first who made this declaration, but that in 
doing so he was the mere expositor of the mystical tradition of the church. Those who assisted 
at the Alexandrian Council examined also with great minuteness the question concerning 
‘Essence’ or ‘Substance,’ and ‘Existence,’ ‘Subsistence,’ or ‘Personality.’ For Hosius, bishop 
of Cordova in Spain, who has been before referred to as having been sent by the Emperor 
Constantine to allay the excitement which Arius had caused, originated the controversy 
about these terms in his earnestness to overthrow the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan. In the 
council of Nicaea, however, which was held soon after, this dispute was not agitated; but in 
consequence of the contention about it which subsequently arose, the matter was freely 

476 The bishops composing the Council of Nicsea simply declared their faith in the Holy Spirit, without 
adding any definition; they were not met with any denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This denial was first 
made by Macedonius, in the fourth century. 

477 Euseb. H. E. VI. 33, says that this Beryllus denied that Christ was God before the Incarnation. He, however, 
gives the see of Beryllus as Bostra in Arabia, instead of Philadelphia. So also Epiphanius Scholasticus; though 
Nicephorus, X. 2, calls him Cyrillus, instead of Beryllus. 


By the Co-operation of Eusebius and Athanasius a Synod is held at Alexandria, .. . 


discussed at Alexandria. It was there determined that such expressions as ousia and hy- 
postasis ought not to be used in reference to God: for they argued that the word ousia is 
nowhere employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle has misapplied the term 
hypostasis 479 owing to an inevitable necessity arising from the nature of the doctrine. They 
nevertheless decided that in refutation of the Sabellian error these terms were admissible, 
in default of more appropriate language, lest it should be supposed that one thing was indic- 
ated by a threefold designation; whereas we ought rather to believe that each of those named 
in the Trinity is God in his own proper person. Such were the decisions of this Synod. If we 
may express our own judgment concerning substance and personality, it appears to us that 
the Greek philosophers have given us various definitions of ousia, but have not taken the 
slightest notice of hypostasis. Irenaeus 480 the grammarian indeed, in his Alphabetical [Lexicon 
entitled] Atticistes, even declares it to be a barbarous term; for it is not to be found in any 
of the ancients, except occasionally in a sense quite different from that which is attached to 
it in the present day. Thus Sophocles, in his tragedy entitled Phoenix, uses it to signify 
‘treachery’: in Menander it implies ‘sauces’; as if one should call the ‘sediment’ at the bottom 
of a hogshead of wine hypostasis. But although the ancient philosophical writers scarcely 
noticed this word, the more modern ones have frequently used it instead of ousia. This term, 
as we before observed, has been variously defined: but can that which is capable of being 
circumscribed by a definition be applicable to God who is incomprehensible? Evagrius in 

AO 1 

his Monachicus, cautions us against rash and inconsiderate language in reference to God; 
forbidding all attempt to define the divinity, inasmuch as it is wholly simple in its nature: 
‘for,’ says he, ‘definition belongs only to things which are compound.’ The same author 
further adds, ‘Every proposition has either a “genus” which is predicted, or a “species,” or 
a “differentia,” or a “proprium,” or an “accidens,” or that which is compounded of these: 
but none of these can be supposed to exist in the sacred Trinity. Let then what is inexplicable 
be adored in silence.’ Such is the reasoning of Evagrius, of whom we shall again speak 
hereafter. We have indeed made a digression here, but such as will tend to illustrate the 
subject under consideration. 

478 Valesius conjectures that Socrates is wrong here in attributing such an action to the Synod of Alexandria, 
as the term ousia does not occur in the Nicene Creed, and such action would therefore be in manifest contradiction 
to the action at Nicaea. This, however, is not probable, in view of the dominating influence of Athanasius in 
both. But, as the acts of the Alexandrian synod are not extant, it is impossible to verify this conjecture. 

479 Heb. i. 3. 

480 See Suidas, Lexicon. 

481 The only work of Evagrius preserved to our days is his Ecclesiastical History. 

IV. 23. 



Quotations from Athanasius' 'Defense of his Flight. ' 

Chapter VIII . — Quotations from Athanasius’ Defense of his Flight.’ 

On this occasion Athanasius read to those present the Defense which he had composed 
some time before in justification of his flight; a few passages from which it maybe of service 
to introduce here, leaving the entire production, which is too long to be transcribed, to be 
sought out and perused by the studious. See the daring enormities of the impious persons! 

Such are their proceedings: and yet instead of blushing at their former clumsy intrigues 
against us, they even now abuse us for having effected our escape out of their murderous 
hands; nay, are grievously vexed that they were unable to put us out of the way altogether. 
In short, they overlook the fact that while they pretend to upbraid us with ‘cowardice,’ they 
are really criminating themselves: for if it be disgraceful to flee, it is still more so to pursue, 
since the one is only endeavoring to avoid being murdered, while the other is seeking to 
commit the deed. But Scripture itself directs us to flee : 484 and those who persecute unto 
death, in attempting to violate the law, constrain us to have recourse to flight. They should 
rather, therefore, be ashamed of their persecution, than reproach us for having sought to 
escape from it: let them cease to harass, and those who flee will also cease. Nevertheless they 
set no bounds to their malevolence, using every art to entrap us, in the consciousness that 
the flight of the persecuted is the strongest condemnation of the persecutor: for no one runs 
away from a mild and beneficent person, but from one who is of a barbarous and cruel dis- 
position. Hence it was that ‘Every one that was discontented and in debt’ fled from Saul to 
David. Wherefore these [foes of ours] in like manner desire to kill such as conceal 
themselves, that no evidence may exist to convict them of their wickedness. But in this also 
these misguided men most egregiously deceive themselves: for the more obvious the effort 
to elude them, the more manifestly will their deliberate slaughters and exiles be exposed. If 
they act the part of assassins, the voice of the blood which is shed will cry against them the 
louder: and if they condemn to banishment, they will raise so everywhere living monuments 
of their own injustice and oppression. Surely unless their intellects were unsound they would 
perceive the dilemma in which their own counsels entangle them. But since they have lost 
sound judgment, their folly is exposed when they vanish, and when they seek to stay they 
do not see their wickedness. But if they reproach those who succeed in secreting themselves 

from the malice of their blood-thirsty adversaries, and revile such as flee from their perse- 
cutors, what will they say to Jacob’s retreat from the rage of his brother Esau, and to 

483 Athan. de Fuga. 7. 

484 Matt. x. 23. 

485 2 Kings xxii. 2 (LXX). 

486 Athanas. de Fuga. 10. 
Gen. xxviii. 



Quotations from Athanasius' 'Defense of his Flight. ' 


Moses retiring into the land of Midian for fear of Pharaoh? And what apology will these 
babblers make for David’s 489 flight from Saul, when he sent messengers from his own house 
to dispatch him; and for his concealment in a cave, after contriving to extricate himself from 
the treacherous designs of Abimelech , 490 by feigning madness? What will these reckless 
asserters of whatever suits their purpose answer, when they are reminded of the great 
prophet Elijah , 491 who by calling upon God had recalled the dead to life, hiding himself 
from dread of Ahab, and fleeing on account of Jezebel’s menaces? At which time the sons 
of the prophets also, being sought for in order to be slain, withdrew, and were concealed in 
caves by Obadiah ; 492 or are they unacquainted with these instances because of their antiquity? 
Have they forgotten also what is recorded in the Gospel, that the disciples retreated and hid 
themselves for fear of the Jews ? 493 Paul , 494 when sought for by the governor [of Damascus] 
‘was let down from the wall in a basket, and thus escaped the hands of him that sought him.’ 
Since then Scripture relates these circumstances concerning the saints, what excuse can they 
fabricate for their temerity? If they charge us with ‘cowardice,’ it is in utter insensibility to 
the condemnation it pronounces on themselves. If they asperse these holy men by asserting 
that they acted contrary to the will of God, they demonstrate their ignorance of Scripture. 
For it was commanded in the Law that ‘cities of refuge’ should be constituted , 495 by which 
provision was made that such as were pursued in order to be put to death might have means 
afforded of preserving themselves. Again in the consummation of the ages, when the Word 
of the Father, who had before spoken by Moses, came himself to the earth, he gave this express 
injunction, ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee unto another :’ 496 and shortly after, 
‘When therefore ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the 
prophet, stand in the holy place (let whosoever reads, understand), then let those in Judea 
flee unto the mountains: let him that is on the house-top not come down to take anything 
out of his house; nor him that is in the fields return to take his clothes .’ 497 The saints 
therefore knowing these precepts, had such a sort of training for their action: for what the 
Lord then commanded, he had before his coming in the flesh already spoken of by his ser- 


Ex. ii. 15. 


1 Sam. xix. 12. 


Rather Achisch, king of Gath, 1 Sam. xxi. 10. 


1 Kings xix. 3. 


1 Kings xviii. 4. 


Matt. xxvi. 56. 


2 Cor. xi. 32, 33. 


Num. xxxv. 11. 


Matt. x. 23. 


Matt. xxiv. 15-18. 


Quotations from Athanasius' 'Defense of his Flight. ' 

vants. And this is a universal rule for man, leading to perfection, ‘to practice whatever God 
has enjoined.’ On this account the Word himself, becoming incarnate for our sake, deigned 
to conceal himself when he was sought for ; 498 and being again persecuted, condescended 
to withdraw to avoid the conspiracy against him. For thus it became him, by hungering and 
thirsting and suffering other afflictions, to demonstrate that he was indeed made man . 499 
For at the very commencement, as soon as he was born, he gave this direction by an angel 
to Joseph: ‘Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, for Herod 
will seek the infant’s life .’ 500 And after Herod’s death, it appears that for fear of his son 
Archelaus he retired to Nazareth. Subsequently, when he gave unquestionable evidence of 
his Divine character by healing the withered hand, ‘when the Pharisees took council how 
they might destroy him , 501 Jesus knowing their wickedness withdrew himself thence.’ 
Moreover, when he had raised Lazarus from the dead, and they had become still more intent 
on destroying him, [we are told that] ‘Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews, “ but 
retired into a region on the borders of the desert.’ Again when the Saviour said, ‘Before 
Abraham was, I am;’ and the Jews took up stones to cast at him; Jesus concealed himself, 
and going through the midst of them out of the Temple, went away thence, and so escaped. 
Since then they see these things, or rather understand them , 504 (for they will not see,) are 
they not deserving of being burnt with fire, according to what is written, for acting and 
speaking so plainly contrary to all that the Lord did and taught? Finally, when John had 
suffered martyrdom, and his disciples had buried his body, Jesus having heard what was 
done, departed thence by ship into a desert place apart . 505 Now the Lord did these things 
and so taught. But would that these men of whom I speak, had the modesty to confine their 
rashness to men only, without daring to be guilty of such madness as to accuse the Saviour 
himself of ‘cowardice’; especially after having already uttered blasphemies against him. But 
even if they be insane they will not be tolerated and their ignorance of the gospels be detected 
by every one. The cause for retreat and flight under such circumstances as these is reasonable 
and valid, of which the evangelists have afforded us precedents in the conduct of our Saviour 
himself: from which it may be inferred that the saints have always been justly influenced by 
the same principle, since whatever is recorded of him as man, is applicable to mankind in 


John viii. 59. 


Abbreviated from Athanasius. 


Matt. ii. 13, 22. 


Matt. xii. 14, 15. 


John xi. 53, 54. 


John viii. 58. 


Matt. xiii. 13; Isa. ix. 5. 


Matt. xiv. 12, 13. 


Quotations from Athanasius' 'Defense of his Flight. ' 

general. For he took on himself our nature, and exhibited in himself the affections of our 
infirmity, which John has thus indicated: ‘Then they sought to take him; but no man laid 
hands on him, because his hour was not yet come .’ 506 Moreover, before that hour came, he 


himself said to his mother, ‘Mine hour is not yet come; and to those who were denom- 
inated his brethren, ‘My time is not yet come.’ Again when the time had arrived, he said to 
his disciples, ‘Sleep on now, and take your rest: for behold the hour is at hand, and the Son 
of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners .’ 508 . . . So 509 that he neither permitted 
himself to be apprehended before the time came; nor when the time was come did he conceal 
himself, but voluntarily gave himself up to those who had conspired against him . 510 . . . Thus 
also the blessed martyrs have guarded themselves in times of persecution: being persecuted 
they fled, and kept themselves concealed; but being discovered they suffered martyrdom. 

Such is the reasoning of Athanasius in his apology for his own flight. 





John vii. 30. 
John ii. 4; iii. 6. 
Matt. xxvi. 45. 


Athan. deFuga. 15. 
Athan. de Fuga. 22. 


After the Synod of Alexandria, Eusebius proceeding to Antioch finds the... 

Chapter IX. — After the Synod of Alexandria, Eusebius proceeding to Antioch finds the Cath- 
olics at Variance on Account ofPaulinus’ Consecration; and having exerted himself in 
vain to reconcile them, he departs; Indignation of Lucifer and Origin of a Sect called after 

As soon as the council of Alexandria was dissolved, Eusebius bishop of Vercellae went 
from Alexandria to Antioch; there finding that Paulinus had been ordained by Lucifer, and 
that the people were disagreeing among themselves, — for the partisans of Meletius held 
their assemblies apart, — he was exceedingly grieved at the want of harmony concerning this 
election, and in his own mind disapproved of what had taken place. His respect for Lucifer 
however induced him to be silent about it, and on his departure he engaged that all things 
should be set right by a council of bishops. Subsequently he labored with great earnestness 
to unite the dissentients, but did not succeed. Meanwhile Meletius returned from exile; and 
finding his followers holding their assemblies apart from the others, he set himself at their 
head. But Euzoius, the chief of the Arian heresy, had possession of the churches: Paulinus 511 
only retained a small church within the city, from which Euzoius had not ejected him, on 
account of his personal respect for him. But Meletius assembled his adherents without the 
gates of the city. It was under these circumstances that Eusebius left Antioch at that time. 
When Lucifer understood that his ordination of Paul was not approved of by Eusebius, re- 
garding it as an insult, he became highly incensed; and not only separated himself from 
communion with him, but also began, in a contentious spirit, to condemn what had been 
determined by the Synod. These things occurring at a season of grievous disorder, alienated 
many from the church; for many attached themselves to Lucifer, and thus a distinct sect 


arose under the name of ‘Luciferians. Nevertheless Lucifer was unable to give full expres- 

sion to his anger, inasmuch as he had pledged himself by his deacon to assent to whatever 
should be decided on by the Synod. Wherefore he adhered to the tenets of the church, and 
returned to Sardinia to his own see: but such as at first identified themselves with his quarrel, 
still continue separate from the church. Eusebius, on the other hand, traveling throughout 
the Eastern provinces like a good physician, completely restored those who were weak in 
the faith, instructing and establishing them in ecclesiastical principles. After this he passed 
over to Illyricum, and thence to Italy, where he pursued a similar course. 

511 V. 5. 

512 Cf. Sozom. III. 15, and V. 12. 


Of Hilary Bishop of Poictiers. 

Chapter X. — Of Hilary Bishop of Poictiers. 

There, however, Hilary bishop of Poictiers (a city of Aquitania Secunda) had anticipated 
him, having previously confirmed the bishops of Italy and Gaul in the doctrines of the or- 
thodox faith; for he first had returned from exile to these countries. Both therefore nobly 
combined their energies in defense of the faith: and Hilary being a very eloquent man, 
maintained with great power the doctrine of the homoousion in books which he wrote in 
Latin. In these he gave sufficient support [to the doctrine] and unanswerably confuted the 
Arian tenets. These things took place shortly after the recall of those who had been banished. 
But it must be observed, that at the same time Macedonius, Eleusius, Eustathius, and 
Sophronius, with all their partisans, who had but the one common designation Macedonians, 


held frequent Synods in various places. Having called together those of Seleucia who 
embraced their views, they anathematized the bishops of the other party, that is the Acacian: 
and rejecting the creed of Ariminum, they confirmed that which had been read at Seleucia. 
This, as I have stated in the preceding book , 514 was the same as had been before promulgated 
at Antioch. When they were asked by some one, ‘Why have ye, who are called Macedonians 
hitherto, retained communion with the Acacians, as though ye agreed in opinion, if ye really 
hold different sentiments?’ they replied thus, through Sophronius, bishop of Pompeiopolis, 
a city of Paphlagonia: ‘Those in the West,’ said he, ‘were infected with the homoousian error 
as with a disease: Aetius in the East adulterated the purity of the faith by introducing the 
assertion of a dissimilitude of substance. Now both of these dogmas are illegitimate; for the 
former rashly blended into one the distinct persons of the Father and the Son, binding them 
together by that cord of iniquity the term homoousion; while Aetius wholly separated that 
affinity of nature of the Son to the Father, by the expression anomoion, unlike as to substance 
or essence. Since then both these opinions run into the very opposite extremes, the middle 
course between them appeared to us to be more consistent with truth and piety: we accord- 
ingly assert that the Son is “like the Father as to subsistence.’” 

Such was the answer the Macedonians made by Sophronius to that question, as Sabinus 
assures us in his Collection of the Synodical Acts. But in decrying Aetius as the author of the 
Anomoion doctrine, and not Acacius, they flagrantly disguise the truth, in order to seem 
as far removed from the Arians on the one side, as from the Homoousians on the other: for 
their own words convict them of having separated from them both, merely from the love 
of innovation. With these remarks we close our notice of these persons. 

513 Sozom. V. 14; Theodoret, Hceret. Fabul. IV. 

514 II. 10. 39. 


The Emperor Julian extracts Money from the Christians. 

Chapter XI . — The Emperor Julian extracts Money from the Christians. 

Although at the beginning of his reign the Emperor Julian conducted himself mildly 
toward all men; but as he went on he did not continue to show the same equanimity. He 
most readily indeed acceded to the requests of the Christians, when they tended in any way 
to cast odium on the memory of Constantius; but when this inducement did not exist, he 
made no effort to conceal the rancorous feelings which he entertained towards Christians 
in general. Accordingly he soon ordered that the church of the Novatians at Cyzicus, which 
Euzoius had totally demolished, should be rebuilt, imposing a very heavy penalty upon 
Eleusius bishop of that city, if he failed to complete that structure at his own expense within 
the space of two months. Moreover, he favored the pagan superstitions with the whole 
weight of his authority: and the temples of the heathen were opened, as we have before 
stated ; 515 but he himself also publicly offered sacrifices to Fortune, goddess of Constantinople, 
in the cathedral , 516 where her image was erected. 

515 Chap. 1. 

516 (3aaiAiKfj. On the origin and history of the term, see Bennett, Christian Archaeology, pp. 157-163. The 
special basilica meant here was situated, according to Valesius, in the fourth precinct, and alone called (3aoiAu<q, 
or ‘cathedral’ without qualification. The ‘Theodosian cathedral’ was situated in the seventh ward. 


Of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon; Julian forbids Christians from entering Literary... 

Chapter XII. — Of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon; Julian forbids Christians from entering Literary 


About this time, Maris bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia being led by the hand into the 
emperor’s presence, — for on account of extreme old age he had a disease in his eyes termed 
‘cataract,’ — severely rebuked his impiety, apostasy, and atheism. Julian answered his re- 
proaches by loading him with contumelious epithets: and he defended himself by words 
calling him ‘blind.’ ‘You blind old fool,’ said he, ‘this Galilaean God of yours will never cure 
you.’ For he was accustomed to term Christ ‘the Galilaean,’ and Christians Galilaeans. 
Maris with still greater boldness replied, ‘I thank God for bereaving me of my sight, that I 
might not behold the face of one who has fallen into such awful impiety.’ The emperor 
suffered this to pass without farther notice at that time; but he afterwards had his revenge. 
Observing that those who suffered martyrdom under the reign of Diocletian were greatly 
honored by the Christians, and knowing that many among them were eagerly desirous of 
becoming martyrs, he determined to wreak his vengeance upon them in some other way. 
Abstaining therefore from the excessive cruelties which had been practiced under Diocletian; 
he did not however altogether abstain from persecution (for any measures adopted to disquiet 

(7 10 

and molest I regard as persecution). This then was the plan he pursued: he enacted a law 
by which Christians were excluded from the cultivation of literature; ‘lest,’ said he, ‘when 
they have sharpened their tongue, they should be able the more readily to meet the arguments 
of the heathen.’ 

517 Cf. John i. 46, and Acts ii. 7. Later the word was used by the heathen also, contemptuously, as a term of 

518 Chap. 16. 


Of the Outrages committed by the Pagans against the Christians. 

Chapter XIII . — Of the Outrages committed by the Pagans against the Christians. 

He moreover interdicted such as would not abjure Christianity, and offer sacrifice to 
idols, from holding any office at court: nor would he allow Christians to be governors of 
provinces; ‘for,’ said he, ‘their law forbids them to use the sword against offenders worthy 
of capital punishment .’ 519 He also induced many to sacrifice, partly by flatteries, and partly 
by gifts. Immediately, as if tried in a furnace, it at once became evident to all, who were the 
real Christians, and who were merely nominal ones. Such as were Christians in integrity of 


heart, very readily resigned their commission, choosing to endure anything rather than 
deny Christ. Of this number were Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, each of whom afterwards 
became emperor. But others of unsound principles, who preferred the riches and honor of 
this world to the true felicity, sacrificed without hesitation. Of these was Ecebolius, a soph- 

n i 

ist of Constantinople who, accommodating himself to the dispositions of the emperors, 

pretended in the reign of Constantius to be an ardent Christian; while in Julian’s time he 
appeared an equally vigorous pagan: and after Julian’s death, he again made a profession of 
Christianity. For he prostrated himself before the church doors, and called out, ‘Trample 
on me, for I am as salt that has lost its savor.’ Of so fickle and inconstant a character was 
this person, throughout the whole period of his history. About this time the emperor wishing 
to make reprisals on the Persians, for the frequent incursions they had made on the Roman 
territories in the reign of Constantius, marched with great expedition through Asia into the 
East. But as he well knew what a train of calamities attend a war, and what immense resources 
are needful to carry it on successfully and that without it cannot be carried on, he craftily 
devised a plan for collecting money by extorting it from the Christians. On all those who 
refused to sacrifice he imposed a heavy fine, which was exacted with great rigor from such 
as were true Christians, every one being compelled to pay in proportion to what he possessed. 
By these unjust means the emperor soon amassed immense wealth; for this law was put in 
execution, both where Julian was personally present, and where he was not. The pagans at 
the same time assailed the Christians; and there was a great concourse of those who styled 


themselves ‘philosophers.’ They then proceeded to institute certain abominable mysteries; 
and sacrificing pure children both male and female, they inspected their entrails, and even 
tasted their flesh. These infamous rites were practiced in other cities, but more particularly 

519 Based, probably, on Matt. xxvi. 52, and John xviii. 11. 

520 ijd)vr|v aTt£r(0£vro ; literally, ‘put off their girdle,’ as the badge of office. 

52 1 The term was used first by traveling teachers of rhetoric at the time of the philosopher Socrates as descript- 
ive of their profession; and although it later acquired an unfavorable significance, it continued to be used also 
as a professional name given to teachers of rhetoric, as here. 

522 Cf. Tertull. Apol. IX. ‘In the bosom of Africa infants were publicly sacrificed to Saturn, even to the days 
of a proconsul under Tiberius,’ &c. 


Of the Outrages committed by the Pagans against the Christians. 

at Athens and Alexandria; in which latter place, a calumnious accusation was made against 
Athanasius the bishop, the emperor being assured that he was intent on desolating not that 
city only, but all Egypt, and that nothing but his expulsion out of the country could save it. 
The governor of Alexandria was therefore instructed by an imperial edict to apprehend him. 


Flight of Athanasius. 

Chapter XIV . — Flight of Athanasius. 

But he fled again, saying to his intimates, ‘Let us retire for a little while, friends; it is but 
a small cloud which will soon pass away.’ He then immediately embarked, and crossing the 
Nile, hastened with all speed into Egypt, closely pursued by those who sought to take him. 
When he understood that his pursuers were not far distant, his attendants were urging him 
to retreat once more into the desert, but he had recourse to an artifice and thus effected his 
escape. He persuaded those who accompanied him to turn back and meet his adversaries, 
which they did immediately; and on approaching them they were simply asked ‘where they 
had seen Athanasius’: to which they replied that ‘he was not a great way off,’ and, that ‘if 
they hastened they would soon overtake him.’ Being thus deluded, they started afresh in 
pursuit with quickened speed, but to no purpose; and Athanasius making good his retreat, 
returned secretly to Alexandria; and there he remained concealed until the persecution was 
at an end. Such were the perils which succeeded one another in the career of the bishop of 
Alexandria, these last from the heathen coming after that to which he was before subjected 
from Christians. In addition to these things, the governors of the provinces taking advantage 
of the emperor’s superstition to feed their own cupidity, committed more grievous outrages 
on the Christians than their sovereign had given them a warrant for; sometimes exacting 
larger sums of money than they ought to have done, and at others inflicting on them corporal 
punishments. The emperor learning of these excesses, connived at them; and when the 
sufferers appealed to him against their oppressors, he tauntingly said, ‘It is your duty to bear 
these afflictions patiently; for this is the command of your God.’ 


Martyrs at Merum in Phrygia, under Julian. 

Chapter XV . — Martyrs at Merum in Phrygia, under Julian. 

Amachius governor of Phrygia ordered that the temple at Merum, a city of that province, 
should be opened, and cleared of the filth which had accumulated there by lapse of time: 
also that the statues it contained should be polished fresh. This in being put into operation 
grieved the Christians very much. Now a certain Macedonius and Theodulus and Tatian, 
unable to endure the indignity thus put upon their religion, and impelled by a fervent zeal 
for virtue, rushed by night into the temple, and broke the images in pieces. The governor 
infuriated at what had been done, would have put to death many in that city who were alto- 
gether innocent, when the authors of the deed voluntarily surrendered themselves, choosing 
rather to die themselves in defense of the truth, than to see others put to death in their stead. 
The governor seized and ordered them to expiate the crime they had committed by sacrifi- 
cing: on their refusal to do this, their judge menaced them with tortures; but they despising 
his threats, being endowed with great courage, declared their readiness to undergo any 
sufferings, rather than pollute themselves by sacrificing. After subjecting them to all possible 
tortures he at last laid them on gridirons under which a fire was placed, and thus slew them. 
But even in this last extremity they gave the most heroic proofs of fortitude, addressing the 
ruthless governor thus: ‘If you wish to eat broiled flesh, Amachius, turn us on the other side 
also, lest we should appear but half cooked to your taste.’ Thus these martyrs ended their 


Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor's Prohibition... 

Chapter XVI. — Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor’s Prohibition 

of Christians being instructed in Greek Literature. 

n o 

The imperial law which forbade Christians to study Greek literature, rendered the 
two Apollinares of whom we have above spoken, much more distinguished than before. For 
both being skilled in polite learning, the father as a grammarian, and the son as a rhetorician, 
they made themselves serviceable to the Christians at this crisis. For the former, as a gram- 
marian, composed a grammar consistent with the Christian faith: he also translated the 
Books of Moses into heroic verse; and paraphrased all the historical books of the Old Test- 
ament, putting them partly into dactylic measure, and partly reducing them to the form of 
dramatic tragedy. He purposely employed all kinds of verse, that no form of expression pe- 
culiar to the Greek language might be unknown or unheard of amongst Christians. The 
younger Apollinaris, who was well trained in eloquence, expounded the gospels and 
apostolic doctrines in the way of dialogue, as Plato among the Greeks had done. Thus 
showing themselves useful to the Christian cause they overcame the subtlety of the emperor 
through their own labors. But Divine Providence was more potent than either their labors, 
or the craft of the emperor: for not long afterwards, in the manner we shall hereafter ex- 
plain , 524 the law became wholly inoperative; and the works of these men are now of no 
greater importance, than if they had never been written. But perhaps some one will vigorously 
reply saying: ‘On what grounds do you affirm that both these things were effected by the 
providence of God? That the emperor’s sudden death was very advantageous to Christianity 
is indeed evident: but surely the rejection of the Christian compositions of the two Apollin- 
ares, and the Christians beginning afresh to imbue their minds with the philosophy of the 
heathens, this works out no benefit to Christianity, for pagan philosophy teaches Polytheism, 
and is injurious to the promotion of true religion.’ This objection I shall meet with such 
considerations as at present occur to me. Greek literature certainly was never recognized 
either by Christ or his Apostles as divinely inspired, nor on the other hand was it wholly 
rejected as pernicious. And this they did, I conceive, not inconsiderately. For there were 
many philosophers among the Greeks who were not far from the knowledge of God; and 
in fact these being disciplined by logical science, strenuously opposed the Epicureans and 
other contentious Sophists who denied Divine Providence, confuting their ignorance. And 
for these reasons they have become useful to all lovers of real piety: nevertheless they 
themselves were not acquainted with the Head of true religion, being ignorant of the mystery 


of Christ which ‘had been hidden from generations and ages. And that this was so, the 

523 Cf. Sozom. V. 18; also above, II. 46. 

524 Chap. 21. 

525 Col. i. 26. 


Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor's Prohibition... 

n zr 

Apostle in his epistle to the Romans thus declares: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from 

heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unright- 
eousness. Because that which maybe known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown 
it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, that 
they may be without excuse; because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as 
God.’ From these words it appears that they had the knowledge of truth, which God had 
manifested to them; but were guilty on this account, that when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God. Wherefore by not forbidding the study of the learned works of the Greeks, 
they left it to the discretion of those who wished to do so. This is our first argument in defense 
of the position we took: another may be thus put: The divinely inspired Scriptures un- 
doubtedly inculcate doctrines that are both admirable in themselves, and heavenly in their 
character: they also eminently tend to produce piety and integrity of life in those who are 
guided by their precepts, pointing out a walk of faith which is highly approved of God. But 
they do not instruct us in the art of reasoning, by means of which we may be enabled suc- 
cessfully to resist those who oppose the truth. Besides adversaries are most easily foiled, 
when we can use their own weapons against them. But this power was not supplied to 
Christians by the writings of the Apollinares. Julian had this in mind when he by law pro- 
hibited Christians from being educated in Greek literature, for he knew very well that the 
fables it contains would expose the whole pagan system, of which he had become the 
champion to ridicule and contempt. Even Socrates, the most celebrated of their philosophers, 
despised these absurdities, and was condemned on account of it, as if he had attempted to 
violate the sanctity of their deities. Moreover, both Christ and his Apostle enjoin us ‘to be- 
come discriminating money-changers, so that we might ‘prove all things, and hold fast 


that which is good’: directing us also to ‘beware lest any one should spoil us through 

philosophy and vain deceit.’ But this we cannot do, unless we possess ourselves of the 
weapons of our adversaries: taking care that in making this acquisition we do not adopt 
their sentiments, but testing them, reject the evil, but retain all that is good and true: for 
good wherever it is found, is a property of truth. Should any one imagine that in making 
these assertions we wrest the Scriptures from their legitimate construction, let it be re- 
membered that the Apostle not only does not forbid our being instructed in Greek learning, 
but that he himself seems by no means to have neglected it, inasmuch as he knows many of 
the sayings of the Greeks. Whence did he get the saying, ‘The Cretans are always liars, evil 

526 Rom. i. 18-21. 

527 On this extra-Scriptural saying attributed to Jesus Christ, see n. 54, Introd, p. xi. 

528 1 Thess. v. 21. 

Col. ii. 8. 



Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor's Prohibition... 

ro 0 coi 

beasts, slow-bellies,’ but from a perusal of The Oracles of Epimenides, the Cretan Ini- 


tiator? Or how would he have known this, ‘For we are also his offspring,’ had he not been 


acquainted with The Phenomena of Aratus the astronomer? Again this sentence, ‘Evil 
communications corrupt good manners ,’ 534 is a sufficient proof that he was conversant 


with the tragedies of Euripides. But what need is there of enlarging on this point? It is 
well known that in ancient times the doctors of the church by unhindered usage were accus- 
tomed to exercise themselves in the learning of the Greeks, until they had reached an ad- 
vanced age: this they did with a view to improve themselves in eloquence and to strengthen 
and polish their mind, and at the same time to enable them to refute the errors of the heathen. 
Let these remarks be sufficient in the subject suggested by the two Apollinares. 

530 Tit. i. 12. 

531 Cf. Theophrastus, VII. x. and Diogenes Laertius, I. x. The latter gives a list of Epimenides’ works, but 
makes no mention of any ‘Oracles.’ Socrates must have used this term in a more general sense therefore, and 
meant some collection of obscure and mystical writings. He also calls Epimenides an ‘Initiator,’ because, according 
to the testimony of Theophrastus, he was versed particularly in lustration and coruscation. 

532 Acts xvii. 28. 

533 Fabricius, Bibl. Grcec. II. p. 451 seq. 

534 1 Cor. xv. 33. 

535 Menander, and not Euripides, is the only author to whom this line can be traced (see Tertull. ad Uxor. 
1. 8, and Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Grcec. Vol. IV. p. 132), but it may have been a popular proverb, or even originally 
a composition of Euripides, which Menander simply used. 


The Emperor preparing an Expedition against the Persians, arrives at Antioch, .. . 

Chapter XVII. — The Emperor preparing an Expedition against the Persians, arrives at Antioch, 

and being ridiculed by the Inhabitants, he retorts on them by a Satirical Publication entitled 

‘Misopogon, or the Beard-Hater.’ 

The emperor having extorted immense sums of money from the Christians, hastening 
his expedition against the Persians, arrived at Antioch in Syria. There, desiring to show the 
citizens how much he affected glory, he unduly depressed the prices of commodities; neither 
taking into account the circumstances of that time, nor reflecting how much the presence 
of an army inconveniences the population of the provinces, and of necessity lessens the 
supply of provisions to the cities. The merchants and retailers therefore left off trading, 
being unable to sustain the losses which the imperial edict entailed upon them; consequently 
the necessaries failed. The Antiochians not bearing the insult, — for they are a people naturally 
impatient with insult, — instantly broke forth into invectives against Julian; caricaturing his 
beard also, which was a very long one, and saying that it ought to be cut off and manufactured 
into ropes. They added that the bull which was impressed upon his coin, was a symbol of 
his having desolated the world. For the emperor, being excessively superstitious, was con- 


tinually sacrificing bulls on the altars of his idols; and had ordered the impression of a 
bull and altar to be made on his coin. Irritated by these scoffs, he threatened to punish the 
city of Antioch, and returned to Tarsus in Cilicia, giving orders that preparations should 
be made for his speedy departure thence. Whence Libanius the sophist took occasion to 
compose two orations, one addressed to the emperor in behalf of the Antiochians, the other 
to the inhabitants of Antioch on the emperor’s displeasure. It is however affirmed that these 
compositions were merely written, and never recited in public. Julian abandoning his former 
purpose of revenging himself on his satirists by injurious deeds, expended his wrath in re- 
ciprocating their abusive taunts; for he wrote a pamphlet against them which he entitled 
Antiochicus, or Misopogon, thus leaving an indelible stigma upon that city and its inhabitants. 
But we must now speak of the evils which he brought upon the Christians at Antioch. 

536 pi£Ta(3oA£l<; . Cf. n£ta(3oArj, used to designate all merchandising, Julius Pollux, III. 25; hence n£ta(3oA£u<; 
, a ‘retailer,’ ‘small merchant.’ 

537 Hence Gregory of Nazianus calls him Kauatraupoc; , ‘a burner of bulls.’ 


The Emperor consulting an Oracle, the Demon gives no Response, being awed... 

Chapter XVIII. — The Emperor consulting an Oracle, the Demon gives no Response, being 
awed by the Nearness ofBabylas the Martyr. 

Having ordered that the pagan temples at Antioch should be opened, he was very eager 
to obtain an oracle from Apollo of Daphne. But the demon that inhabited the temple remained 

r o o 

silent through fear of his neighbor, Babylas the martyr; for the coffin which contained 
the body of that saint was close by. When the emperor was informed of this circumstance, 
he commanded that the coffin should be immediately removed: upon which the Christians 
of Antioch, including women and children, transported the coffin from Daphne to the city, 


with solemn rejoicings and chanting of psalms. The psalms were such as cast reproach 
on the gods of the heathen, and those who put confidence in them and their images. 

538 See Euseb. H. E. VI. 20 and 39; also Chrysostom, de S. Babyl. According to these authorities Babylas was 
bishop of Antioch, succeeding Sabrinus, and was beheaded in prison during the reign of Decius. His remains 
were transferred to a church built over against the temple of Apollo of Daphne (Sozom. V. 19) by Gallus, Julian’s 

539 Ps. xcvi. 7 (LXX). 


Wrath of the Emperor, and Firmness of Theodore the Confessor. 

Chapter XIX. — Wrath of the Emperor, and Firmness of Theodore the Confessor. 

Then indeed the emperor’s real temper and disposition, which he had hitherto kept as 
much as possible from observation, became fully manifested: for he who had boasted so 
much of his philosophy, was no longer able to restrain himself; but being goaded almost to 
madness by these reproachful hymns, he was ready to inflict the same cruelties on the 
Christians, with which Diocletian’s agents had formerly visited them. Since, however, his 
solicitude about the Persian expedition afforded him no leisure for personally executing his 
wishes, he commanded Sallust the Praetorian Prefect to seize those who had been most 
conspicuous for their zeal in psalm-singing, in order to make examples of them. The prefect, 
though a pagan, was far from being pleased with his commission; but since he durst not 
contravene it, he caused several of the Christians to be apprehended, and some of them to 
be imprisoned. One young man named Theodore, whom the heathens brought before him, 
he subjected to a variety of tortures, causing his person to be so lacerated and only released 
him from further punishment when he thought that he could not possibly outlive the tor- 
ments: yet God preserved this sufferer, so that he long survived that confession. Rufinus, 
the author of the Ecclesiastical History written in Latin, states that he himself conversed with 
the same Theodore a considerable time afterwards: and enquired of him whether in the 
process of scourging and racking he had not felt the most intense pains; his answer was, 
that he felt the pain of the tortures to which he was subjected for a very short time; and that 
a young man stood by him who both wiped off the sweat which was produced by the 
acuteness of the ordeal through which he was passing, and at the same time strengthened 
his mind, so that he rendered this time of trial a season of rapture rather than of suffering. 
Let this suffice concerning the most wonderful Theodore. About this time Persian ambas- 
sadors came to the emperor, requesting him to terminate the war on certain express condi- 
tions. But Julian abruptly dismissed them, saying, ‘You shall very shortly see me in person, 
so that there will be no need of an embassy.’ 


The Jews instigated by the Emperor attempt to rebuild their Temple, and... 

Chapter XX. — The Jews instigated by the Emperor attempt to rebuild their Temple, and are 

frustrated in their Attempt by Miraculous Interposition. 

The emperor in another attempt to molest the Christians exposed his superstition. Being 
fond of sacrificing, he not only himself delighted in the blood of victims, but considered it 
an indignity offered to him, if others did not do likewise. And as he found but few persons 
of this stamp, he sent for the Jews and enquired of them why they abstained from sacrificing, 
since the law of Moses enjoined it? On their replying that it was not permitted them to do 
this in any other place than Jerusalem, he immediately ordered them to rebuild Solomon’s 
temple. Meanwhile he himself proceeded on his expedition against the Persians. The Jews 
who had been long desirous of obtaining a favorable opportunity for rearing their temple 
afresh in order that they might therein offer sacrifice, applied themselves very vigorously 
to the work. Moreover, they conducted themselves with great insolence toward the Christians, 
and threatened to do them as much mischief, as they had themselves suffered from the Ro- 
mans. The emperor having ordered that the expenses of this structure should be defrayed 
out of the public treasury, all things were soon provided, such as timber and stone, burnt 
brick, clay, lime, and all other materials necessary for building. On this occasion Cyril 
bishop of Jerusalem, called to mind the prophecy of Daniel, which Christ also in the holy 
gospels has confirmed, and predicted in the presence of many persons, that the time had 
indeed come ‘in which one stone should not be left upon another in that temple,’ but that 
the Saviour’s prophetic declaration 540 should have its full accomplishment. Such were the 
bishop’s words: and on the night following, a mighty earthquake tore up the stones of the 
old foundations of the temple and dispersed them all together with the adjacent edifices. 
Terror consequently possessed the Jews on account of the event; and the report of it brought 
many to the spot who resided at a great distance: when therefore a vast multitude was as- 
sembled, another prodigy took place. Fire came down from heaven and consumed all the 
builders’ tools: so that the flames were seen preying upon mallets, irons to smooth and 
polish stones, saws, hatchets, adzes, in short all the various implements which the workmen 
had procured as necessary for the undertaking; and the fire continued burning among these 
for a whole day. The Jews indeed were in the greatest possible alarm, and unwillingly con- 
fessed Christ, calling him God: yet they did not do his will; but influenced by inveterate 
prepossessions they still clung to Judaism. Even a third miracle which afterwards happened 
failed to lead them to a belief of the truth. For the next night luminous impressions of a 
cross appeared imprinted on their garments, which at daybreak they in vain attempted to 
rub or wash out. They were therefore ‘blinded’ as the apostle says , 541 and cast away the good 

540 Matt. xxiv. 2, 15. 

541 Rom. xi. 25; 2 Cor. iii. 14. 


The Jews instigated by the Emperor attempt to rebuild their Temple, and... 

which they had in their hands: and thus was the temple, instead of being rebuilt, at that time 
wholly overthrown. 


The Emperor's Invasion of Persia, and Death. 

Chapter XXL — The Emperor’s Invasion of Persia, and Death. 

The emperor meanwhile invaded the country of the Persians a little before spring, 
having learnt that the races of Persia were greatly enfeebled and totally spiritless in winter. 
For from their inability to endure cold, they abstain from military service at that season, 
and it has become a proverb that ‘a Mede will not then draw his hand from underneath his 
cloak.’ And well knowing that the Romans were inured to brave all the rigors of the atmo- 
sphere he let them loose on the country. After devastating a considerable tract of country, 
including numerous villages and fortresses, they next assailed the cities; and having invested 
the great city Ctesiphon, he reduced the king of the Persians to such straits that the latter 
sent repeated embassies to the emperor, offering to surrender a portion of his dominions, 
on condition of his quitting the country, and putting an end to the war. But Julian was un- 
affected by these submissions, and showed no compassion to a suppliant foe: nor did he 
think of the adage, ‘To conquer is honorable, but to be more than conqueror gives occasion 
for envy.’ Giving credit to the divinations of the philosopher Maximus, with whom he was 
in continual intercourse, he was deluded into the belief that his exploits would not only 
equal, but exceed those of Alexander of Macedon; so that he spurned with contempt the 
entreaties of the Persian monarch. He even supposed in accordance with the teachings of 
Pythagoras and Plato on ‘the transmigration of souls ,’ 542 that he was possessed of Alexander’s 
soul, or rather that he himself was Alexander in another body. This ridiculous fancy deluded 
and caused him to reject the negotiations for peace proposed by the king of the Persians. 
Wherefore the latter convinced of the uselessness of them was constrained to prepare for 
conflict, and therefore on the next day after the rejection of his embassy, he drew out in 
order of battle all the forces he had. The Romans indeed censured their prince, for not 
avoiding an engagement when he might have done so with advantage: nevertheless they 
attacked those who opposed them, and again put the enemy to flight. The emperor was 
present on horseback, and encouraged his soldiers in battle; but confiding simply in his 
hope of success, he wore no armor. In this defenceless state, a dart cast by some one unknown, 
pierced through his arm and entered his side, making a wound. In consequence of this 
wound he died. Some say that a certain Persian hurled the javelin, and then fled; others assert 
that one of his own men was the author of the deed, which indeed is the best corroborated 
and most current report. But Callistus, one of his body-guards, who celebrated this emperor’s 
deeds in heroic verse, says in narrating the particulars of this war, that the wound of which 
he died was inflicted by a demon. This is possibly a mere poetical fiction, or perhaps it was 
really the fact; for vengeful furies have undoubtedly destroyed many persons. Be the case 
however as it may, this is certain, that the ardor of his natural temperament rendered him 

542 pcrevatopaTtoaeux; , lit. ‘exchange of bodies,’ formed in analogy with p£T£pt|>uxwai<; and logically insep- 
arable from that doctrine. 


The Emperor's Invasion of Persia, and Death. 

incautious, his learning made him vain, and his affectation of clemency exposed him to 
contempt. Thus Julian ended his life in Persia, 543 as we have said, in his fourth consulate, 544 
which he bore with Sallust his colleague. This event occurred on the 26th of June, in the 
third year of his reign, and the seventh from his having been created Caesar by Constantius, 
he being at that time in the thirty- first year of his age. 

543 Theodoret, H. E. III. 25, gives the familiar version of the death of Julian, according to which, on perceiving 
the character of his wound, the dying emperor filled his hand with blood and threw it up into the air, crying, 
‘Galilean, thou hast overcome!’ 

544 363 a.d. 


Jovian is proclaimed Emperor. 

Chapter XXII . — Jovian is proclaimed Emperor. 

The soldiery being thrown into extreme perplexity by an event so unexpected, and 
without delay, on the following day proclaimed Jovian emperor, a person alike distinguished 
for his courage and birth. He was a military tribune when Julian put forth an edict giving 
his officers the option of either sacrificing or resigning their rank in the army, and chose 
rather to lay down his commission , 545 than to obey the mandate of an impious prince. Julian, 
however, being pressed by the urgency of the war which was before him, retained him among 
his generals. On being saluted emperor, he positively declined to accept the sovereign power: 
and when the soldiers brought him forward by force, he declared that ‘being a Christian, 
he did not wish to reign over a people who chose to adopt paganism as their religion.’ They 
all then with one voice answered that they also were Christians: upon which he accepted 
the imperial dignity. Perceiving himself suddenly left in very difficult circumstances, in the 
midst of the Persian territory, where his army was in danger of perishing for want of neces- 
saries, he agreed to terminate the war, even on terms by no means honorable to the glory 
of the Roman name, but rendered necessary by the exigencies of the crisis. Submitting 
therefore to the loss of the government of Syria , 546 and giving up also Nisibis, a city of 
Mesopotamia, he withdrew from their territories. The announcement of these things gave 
fresh hope to the Christians; while the pagans vehemently bewailed Julian’s death. Never- 
theless the whole army reprobated his intemperate heat, and ascribed to his rashness in 
listening to the wily reports of a Persian deserter, the humiliation of ceding the territories 
lost: for being imposed upon by the statements of this fugitive, he was induced to burn the 
ships which supplied them with provisions by water, by which means they were exposed to 
all the horrors of famine. Then also Libanius composed a funeral oration on him, which he 
designated Julianas, or Epitaph, wherein he celebrates with lofty encomiums almost all his 
actions; but in referring to the books which Julian wrote against the Christians, he says that 
he has therein clearly demonstrated the ridiculous and trifling character of their sacred 
books. Had this sophist contented himself with extolling the emperor’s other acts, I should 
have quietly proceeded with the course of my history; but since this famous rhetorician has 
thought proper to take occasion to inveigh against the Scriptures of the Christian faith, we 
also propose to pause a little and in a brief review consider his words. 

545 See above, chap. 13. 

546 So the mss. and Bright. The same reading was also before Epiphanius Scholasticus and Nicephorus; but 
Valesius conjecturally amends the reading roui; Eupouc; rfR dpxrk into rove; opouc; rr|<; apxrk, alleging that Socrates 
himself later mentions the loss as ijriptav rtov opwv. If the reading of Valesius be considered correct, then we 
must translate ‘submitting to the loss of the borders,’ supplying ‘of the empire.’ This would include the districts 
beyond the Tigris. 


Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 

Chapter XXIII.— Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 

‘When the winter,’ says he , 547 ‘had lengthened the nights, the emperor made an attack 
on those books which made the man of Palestine both God, and the Son of God: and by a 
long series of arguments having proved that these writings, which are so much revered by 
Christians, are ridiculous and unfounded, he has evinced himself wiser and more skillful 


than the Tyrian old man. But may this Tyrian sage be propitious to me, and mildly bear 
with what has been affirmed, seeing that he has been excelled by his son!’ Such is the language 
of Libanius the Sophist. But I confess, indeed, that he was an excellent rhetorician, but am 
persuaded that had he not coincided with the emperor in religious sentiment, he would not 
only have given expression to all that has been said against him by Christians, but would 
have magnified every ground of censure as naturally becomes a rhetorician. For while 
Constantius was alive he wrote encomiums upon him; but after his death he brought the 
most insulting and reproachful charges against him. So that if Porphyry had been emperor, 
Libanius would certainly have preferred his books to Julian’s: and had Julian been a mere 
sophist, he would have termed him a very indifferent one, as he does Ecebolius in his Epitaph 
upon Julian. Since then he has spoken in the spirit of a pagan, a sophist, and the friend of 
him whom he lauded, we shall endeavor to meet what he has advanced, as far as we are able. 
In the first place he says that the emperor undertook to ‘attack’ these books during the long 
winter nights. Now to ‘attack’ means to make the writing of a confutation of them a task, 
as the sophists commonly do in teaching the rudiments of their art; for he had perused these 
books long before, but attacked them at this time. But throughout the long contest into 
which he entered, instead of attempting to disprove anything by sound reasoning, as 
Libanius asserts, in the absence of truth he had recourse to sneers and contemptuous jests, 
of which he was excessively fond; and thus he sought to hold up to derision what is too 
firmly established to be overthrown. For every one who enters into controversy with another, 
sometimes trying to pervert the truth, and at others to conceal it, falsifies by every possible 
means the position of his antagonist. And an adversary is not satisfied with doing malignant 
acts against one with whom he is at variance, but will speak against him also, and charge 
upon the object of his dislike the very faults he is conscious of in himself. That both Julian 
and Porphyry, whom Libanius calls the ‘Tyrian old man,’ took great delight in scoffing, is 
evident from their own works. For Porphyry in his History of the Philosophers has treated 
with ridicule the life of Socrates, the most eminent of all the philosophers, making such re- 
marks on him as neither Melitus, nor Anytus, his accusers, would have dared to utter; of 
Socrates, I say, who was admired by all the Greeks for his modesty, justice, and other virtues; 

547 Liban. Orat. xviii. {Opera, i. Reiske). 

548 Porphyry. See above, I. 9. 


Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 

whom Plato , 549 the most admirable among them, Xenophon, and the rest of the philosophic 
band, not only honor as one beloved of God, but also are accustomed to think of as having 
been endowed with superhuman intelligence. And Julian, imitating his ‘father,’ displayed 
a like morbidness of mind in his book, entitled The Caesars, wherein he traduces all his im- 
perial predecessors, not sparing even Mark the philosopher . 550 Their own writings therefore 
show that they both took pleasure in taunts and reviling; and I have no need of profuse and 
clever expressions to do this; but what has been said is enough concerning their mood in 
this respect. Now I write these things, using the oration of each as witnesses respecting their 
dispositions, but of Julian in particular, what Gregory of Nazianzus 551 says in his Second 
Oration against the Pagans is in the following terms: 

‘These things were made evident to others by experience, after the possession of imper- 
ial authority had left him free to follow the bent of his inclinations: but I had foreseen it all, 
from the time I became acquainted with him at Athens. Thither he came, by permission of 
the emperor, soon after the change in his brother’s fortune. His motive for this visit was 
twofold: one reason was honorable to him, viz. to see Greece, and attend the schools there; 
the other was a more secret one, which few knew anything about, for his impiety had not 
yet presumed to openly avow itself, viz. to have opportunity of consulting the sacrifices 
and other impostors respecting his own destiny. I well remember that even then I was no 
bad diviner concerning this person, although I by no means pretend to be one of those 
skilled in the art of divination: but the fickleness of his disposition, and the incredible extra- 
vagancy of his mind, rendered me prophetic; if indeed he is the “best prophet who conjectures 


correctly” events. For it seemed to me that no good was portended by a neck seldom 
steady, the frequent shrugging of shoulders, an eye scowling and always in motion, together 
with a frenzied aspect; a gait irregular and tottering, a nose breathing only contempt and 
insult, with ridiculous contortions of countenance expressive of the same thing; immoderate 
and very loud laughter, nods as it were of assent, and drawings back of the head as if in 
denial, without any visible cause; speech with hesitancy and interrupted by his breathing; 
disorderly and senseless questions, answers no better, all jumbled together without the least 
consistency or method. Why need I enter into minute particulars? Such I foresaw he would 
be beforehand as I found him afterwards from experience. And if any of those who were 
then present and heard me, were now here, they would readily testify that when I observed 
these prognostics I exclaimed, “Ah! how great a mischief to itself is the Roman empire fos- 

549 In his Crito, Phcedo, Phcedrus, and Apology of Socrates. See also Xenophon’s Memorabilia of Socrates and 

550 Marcus Aurelius. 

551 Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. V. 23. 

552 Euripid. Fragm. 


Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 

tering!” And that when I had uttered these words I prayed God that I might be a false 
prophet. For it would have been far better [that I should have been convicted of having 
formed an erroneous j udgment] , than that the world should be filled with so many calamities, 
and that such a monster should have appeared as never before had been seen: although 
many deluges and conflagrations are recorded, many earthquakes and chasms, and descrip- 
tions are given of many ferocious and inhuman men, as well as prodigies of the brute creation, 
compounded of different races, of which nature produced unusual forms. His end has indeed 
been such as corresponds with the madness of his career.’ 

This is the sketch which Gregory has given us of Julian. Moreover, that in their various 
compilations they have endeavored to do violence to the truth, sometimes by the corruption 
of passages of sacred Scripture, at others by either adding to the express words, and putting 
such a construction upon them as suited their own purpose, many have demonstrated, by 
confuting their cavils, and exposing their fallacies. Origen in particular, who lived long before 


Julian’s time, by himself raising objections to such passages of Holy Scripture as seemed 
to disturb some readers, and then fully meeting them, has shut out the invidious clamors 
of the thoughtless. And had Julian and Porphyry given his writings a candid and serious 
perusal, they would have discoursed on other topics, and not have turned to the framing of 
blasphemous sophisms. It is also very obvious that the emperor in his discourses was intent 
on beguiling the ignorant, and did not address himself to those who possess the ‘form’ of 
the truth as it is presented in the sacred Scriptures. For having grouped together various 
expressions in which God is spoken of dispensationally, and more according to the manner 
of men, he thus comments on them . 554 ‘Every one of these expressions is full of blasphemy 
against God, unless the phrase contains some occult and mysterious sense, which indeed I 
can suppose.’ This is the exact language he uses in his third book against the Christians. But 
in his treatise On the Cynic Philosophy, where he shows to what extent fables maybe invented 
on religious subjects, he says that in such matters the truth must be veiled: ‘For,’ to quote 
his very words , 555 ‘Nature loves concealment; and the hidden substance of the gods cannot 
endure being cast into polluted ears in naked words.’ From which it is manifest that the 
emperor entertained this notion concerning the divine Scriptures, that they are mystical 
discourses, containing in them some abstruse meaning. He is also very indignant because 
all men do not form the same opinion of them; and inveighs against those Christians who 
understand the sacred oracles in a more literal sense. But it ill became him to rail so vehe- 

553 Probably Socrates means Origen’s lost work, known as Stromata, which Jerome (in his Ep. ad Magnum) 
says was written to show the harmony of the Christian doctrines and the teachings of the philosophers. The 
description here given does not tally more precisely with any other work of Origen now extant. 

554 Cyril, Contra Julian. III. (p. 93, ed. Spanheim). 

555 Julian, Orat. VII. 


Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 

mently against the simplicity of the vulgar, and on their account to behave so arrogantly 
towards the sacred Scriptures: nor was he warranted in turning with aversion from those 
things which others rightly apprehended, because forsooth they understood them otherwise 
than he desired they should. But now as it seems a similar cause of disgust seems to have 
operated upon him to that which affected Porphyry, who having been beaten by some 
Christians at Caesarea in Palestine and not being able to endure [such treatment] , from the 
working of unrestrained rage renounced the Christian religion: and from hatred of those 
who had beaten him he took to write blasphemous works against Christians, as Eusebius 
Pamphilus has proved who at the same time refuted his writings. So the emperor having 
uttered disdainful expressions against the Christians in the presence of an unthinking mul- 
titude, through the same morbid condition of mind fell into Porphyry’s blasphemies. Since 
therefore they both willfully broke forth into impiety, they are punished by the consciousness 
of their guilt. But when Libanius the Sophist says 556 in derision, that the Christians make 
‘a man of Palestine both God and the Son of God,’ he appears to have forgotten that he 
himself has deified Julian at the close of his oration. ‘For they almost killed,’ says he, ‘the 
first messenger of his death, as if he had lied against a god.’ And a little afterwards he adds, 


‘O thou cherished one of the gods! thou disciple of the gods! thou associate with the 
gods!’ Now although Libanius may have meant otherwise, yet inasmuch as he did not avoid 
the ambiguity of a word which is sometimes taken in a bad sense, he seems to have said the 
same things as the Christians had done reproachfully. If then it was his intention to praise 
him, he ought to have avoided equivocal terms; as he did on another occasion, when being 
criticised he avoided a certain word, cutting it out of his works. Moreover, that man in Christ 
was united to the Godhead, so that while he was apparently but man, he was the invisible 
God, and that both these things are most true, the divine books of Christians distinctly teach. 
But the heathen before they believe, cannot understand: for it is a divine oracle that de- 


dares ‘Unless ye believe, assuredly ye shall not understand.’ Wherefore they are not 
ashamed to place many men among the number of their gods: and would that they had 
done this, at least to the good, just, and sober, instead of the impure, unjust, and those ad- 
dicted to drunkenness, like the Hercules, the Bacchus, and the /Esculapius, by whom 
Libanius does not blush to swear frequently in his orations. And were I to attempt to enu- 
merate the unnatural debaucheries and infamous adulteries of these, the digression would 
be lengthened beyond measure: but for those who desire to be informed on the subject, 
Aristotle’s Peplum, Dionysius’ Corona, Rheginus’ Polymnemon, and the whole host of poets 
will be enough to show that the pagan theology is a tissue of extravagant absurdities. We 

556 Liban. Orat. XVIII. (Oper. I. 625, Reiske). 

557 TtapeSpeura , term applied to associates on the bench in judicatories. 

558 Isa. vii. 9 (LXX, Kai e& 129 - v pr| 7ttar£uar|re, ou5e pij auvrjre). 


Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 

might indeed show by a variety of instances that the practice of deifying human beings was 
far from uncommon among the heathen, nay, that they did so without the slightest hesitation: 
let a few examples suffice. The Rhodians having consulted an oracle on some public 
calamity, a response was given directing them to pay their adoration to Atys, a pagan priest 
who instituted frantic rites in Phrygia. The oracle was thus expressed: 

‘Atys propitiate, the great god, the chaste Adonis, the blessed fair-haired Dionysius rich 
in gifts.’ 

Here Atys, who from an amatory mania had castrated himself, is by the oracle designated 
as Adonis and Bacchus. 

Again, when Alexander, king of the Macedonians, passed over into Asia, the Amphicty- 
ons courted his favor, and the Pythoness uttered this oracle: 

‘To Zeus supreme among the gods, and Athene Tritogenia pay homage, and to the king 
divine concealed in mortal form, him Zeus begat in honor to be the protector and dispenser 
of justice among mortals, Alexander the king.’ 

These are the words of the demon at Delphi, who when he wished to flatter potentates, 
did not scruple to assign them a place among the gods. The motive here was perhaps to 
conciliate by adulation: but what could one say of the case of Cleomedes the pugilist, whom 
they ranked among the gods in this oracle? 

‘The last of the heroes is Cleomedes, the Astypalian. Him honor with sacrifices; for he 
is no longer a mortal.’ 

Because of this oracle Diogenes the cynic, and Oenomaus the philosopher, strongly 
condemned Apollo. The inhabitants of Cyzicus declared Hadrian to be the thirteenth god; 
and Adrian himself deified his own catamite Antinous . 559 Libanius does not term these 
‘ridiculous and contemptible absurdities,’ although he was familiar with these oracles, as 
well as with the work of Adrias on the life of Alexander 560 (the pseudo-prophet of Paphlago- 
nia): nor does he himself hesitate to dignify Porphyry in a similar manner, when after having 
preferred Julian’s books to his, he says, ‘May the Syrian be propitious to me.’ This digression 
will suffice to repel the scoffs of the sophist, without following him farther in what he has 
advanced; for to enter into a complete refutation would require an express work. We shall 
therefore proceed with our history. 

559 For a full account of Antinous and his relations to Hadrian, see Smith, Diet, of Greek and Roman Biogr. 
and Mythol., article Antinous. The story has been put into literary fiction in the historical novels Antinous, by 
George Taylor (A. Hausrath), and The Emperor, by Georg Ebers. 

560 It is uncertain what the true reading should be here. In one of the mss. it is ’ASptac;, in another AvSptac;; 
according to others 'ASptavoc;, or ’Apptavoc;. Valesius suggests the substitution of AouKtavoc; . If this be adopted, 
then the Alexander suggested is Lucian’s Alexander of Abonoteichus. For a lucid and suggestive reproduction 
of this story, see Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, essay on Lucian. 


Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian. 


The Bishops flock around Jovian , each attempting to draw him to his own... 

Chapter XXIV. — The Bishops flock around Jovian, each attempting to draw him to his own 


Jovian having returned from Persia, ecclesiastical commotions were again renewed: for 
those who presided over the churches endeavored to anticipate each other, in the hope that 
the emperor would attach himself to their own tenets. He however had from the beginning 
adhered to the homoousian faith, and openly declared that he preferred this to all others. 
Moreover, he wrote letters to and encouraged Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, who imme- 
diately after Julian’s death had recovered the Alexandrian church, and at that time gaining 
confidence from the letters [spoken of] put away all fear. The emperor further recalled from 
exile all those prelates whom Constantius had banished, and who had not been re-established 
by Julian. Moreover, the pagan temples were again shut up, and they secreted themselves 
wherever they were able. The philosophers also laid aside their palliums, and clothed 
themselves in ordinary attire. That public pollution by the blood of victims, which had been 
profusely lavished even to disgust in the reign of Julian, was now likewise taken away. 


The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and proclaim their Assent... 

Chapter XXV. — The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and proclaim their Assent 

to the Nicene Creed. 

Meanwhile the state of the church was by no means tranquil; for the heads of the sects 
assiduously paid their court to the emperor their king that protection for themselves meant 
also power against their acknowledged opponents. And first the Macedonians presented a 
petition to him, in which they begged that all those who asserted the Son to be unlike the 
Father, might be expelled from the churches, and themselves allowed to take their place. 
This supplication was presented by Basil bishop of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius 
of Pompeiopolis, Pasinicus of Zelae , 561 Leontius of Comana, Callicrates of Claudiopolis, 
and Theophilus of Castabala. The emperor having perused it, dismissed them without any 
other answer than this: ‘I abominate contentiousness; but I love and honor those who exert 
themselves to promote unanimity.’ When this remark became generally known, it subdued 
the violence of those who were desirous of altercation and thus was realized in the design 
of the emperor. At this time the real spirit of the Acacian sect, and their readiness to accom- 
modate their opinions to those invested with supreme authority, became more conspicuous 
than ever. For assembling themselves at Antioch in Syria, they entered into a conference 
with Melitius, who had separated from them a little before, and embraced the ‘homoousian’ 
opinion. This they did because they saw Melitius was in high estimation with the emperor, 
who then resided at Antioch; and assenting therefore by common consent, they drew up a 
declaration of their sentiments acknowledging the homoousion and ratifying the Nicene 
Creed and presented it to the emperor. It was expressed in the following terms. 

‘The Synod of bishops convened at Antioch out of various provinces, to the most pious 
and beloved of God, our lord Jovian Victor Augustus. 

‘That your piety has above all things aimed at establishing the peace and harmony of 
the church, we ourselves, most devout emperor, are fully aware. Nor are we insensible that 
you have wisely judged an acknowledgment of the orthodox faith to be the sum and substance 
of this unity. Wherefore lest we should be included in the number of those who adulterate 
the doctrine of the truth, we hereby declare to your piety that we embrace and steadfastly 
hold the faith of the holy Synod formerly convened at Nicaea. Especially since the term ho- 
moousios, which to some seems novel “ and inappropriate, has been judiciously explained 

56 1 The mss. and all the Greek texts read Zrjvtov, making the name ‘Pasinicus Zenon, or Zeno. ’ The translation 
here given assumes the alteration in the process of transcription of a single letter making the original Zr|Awv, 
which probably means the city of Zeleia, on the southeastern coast of the Euxine, famous for a victory of Mith- 
ridates over Triarius, the lieutenant of Lucullus, in 67 b.c. 

562 This word, whose original is ^evov, is inserted by Valesius. If it were omitted, the translation would be, 
‘which to some seems acceptable.’ 


The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and proclaim their Assent... 

by the fathers to denote that the Son was begotten of the Father’s substance, and that he is 
like the Father as to substance. Not indeed that any passion is to be understood in relation 
to that ineffable generation. Nor is the term ousia, “substance,” taken by the fathers in any 
usual signification of it among the Greeks; but it has been employed for the subversion of 
what Arius impiously dared to assert concerning Christ, viz. — that he was made of things 
“not existing.” Which heresy the Anomoeans, who have lately sprung up, still more auda- 
ciously maintain, to the utter destruction of ecclesiastical unity. We have therefore annexed 
to this our declaration, a copy of the faith set forth by the bishops assembled at Nicaea, with 
which also we are fully satisfied. It is this: “We believe in one God the Father Almighty,” 
and all the rest of the Creed in full. We, the undersigned, in presenting this statement, most 
cordially assent to its contents. Melitius bishop of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Evagrius 
of Sicily, Uranius of Apamaea, Zoilus of Larissa, Acacius of Caesarea, Antipater of Rhosus, 


Abramius of Urimi, Aristonicus of Seleucia-upon-Belus, Barlamenus of Pergamus, 
Uranius ofMelitina, Magnus ofChalcedon, Eutychius ofEleutheropolis, Isacocis of Armenia 
Major, Titus of Bostra, Peter of Sippi , 564 Pelagius of Laodicaea, Arabian of Antros, Piso of 
Adana through Lamydrion a presbyter, Sabinian bishop of Zeugma, Athanasius of Ancyra 
through Orphitus and Aetius presbyters, Irenion bishop of Gaza, Piso of Augusta, Patricius 
of Paltus through Lamyrion a presbyter, Anatolius bishop of Beroea, Theotimus of the Arabs, 
and Lucian of Area .’ 565 

This declaration we found recorded in that work of Sabin us, entitled A Collection of the 
Acts of Synods. Now the emperor had resolved to allay if possible the contentious spirit of 
the parties at variance, by bland manners and persuasive language toward them all; declaring 
that he ‘would not molest any one on account of his religious sentiments, and that he should 
love and highly esteem such as would zealously promote the unity of the church.’ The 
philosopher Themistius attests that such was his conduct, in the oration he composed on 
his ‘consulate.’ For he extols the emperor for his overcoming the wiles of flatterers by freely 
permitting every one to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. And in 
allusion to the check which the sycophants received, he facetiously observes 566 that experience 
has made it evident that such persons ‘worship the purple and not God; and resemble the 
changeful Euripus, which sometimes rolls its waves in one direction, and at others the 
very opposite way.’ 

563 On the present borders of Turkey and Persia. 

564 According to Valesius Hippi. 

565 The name of this city is variously given as Archis, Area, Arcae, Areas, Arcaea, Arcena. It lies at the foot of 
Mount Lebanon. See Joseph. Antiq. V. 1 and de Bello, XII. 13. 

566 Themist. Orat. V. (p. 80, ed. Harduin). 

567 Straits between Euboea and the mainland. 


The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and proclaim their Assent... 


Death of the Emperor Jovian. 

Chapter XXVI . — Death of the Emperor Jovian. 

Thus did the emperor repress at that time the impetuosity of those who were disposed 
to cavil: and immediately departing from Antioch, he went to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he 
duly performed the funeral obsequies of Julian, after which he was declared consul. Proceed- 
ing thence directly to Constantinople, he arrived at a place named Dadastana, situated on 
the frontiers of Galatia and Bithynia. There Themistius the philosopher, with others of the 
senatorial order, met him, and pronounced the consular oration before him, which he after- 
wards recited before the people at Constantinople. And indeed the Roman empire, blest 
with so excellent a sovereign, would doubtless have flourished exceedingly, as it is likely 
that both the civil and ecclesiastical departments would have been happily administered, 
had not his sudden death bereft the state of so eminent a personage. For disease caused by 
some obstruction, having attacked him at the place above mentioned during the winter 
season, he died there on the 17th day of February, in his own and his son Varronian’s con- 

r rn 

sulate, in the thirty- third year of his age, after having reigned seven months. 

This book contains an account of the events which took place in the space of two years 
and five months. 

568 364 a.d. 


Book IV 

Book IV. 

Chapter I. — After Jovian’s Death, Valentinian is proclaimed Emperor, and takes his Brother 

Valens as Colleague in the Empire; Valentinian holds the Orthodox Faith, but Valens is 

an Arian. 

The Emperor Jovian having died, as we have said, at Dadastana, in his own consulate 
and that of Varronian his son on the 17th of February, the army leaving Galatia arrived at 
Nicaea in Bithynia in seven days’ march, and there unanimously proclaimed Valentinian 
emperor, on the 25th of February, in the same consulate. He was a Pannonian by race, a 
native of the city of Cibalis, and being entrusted with a military command, had displayed 
great skill in tactics. He was moreover endowed with such greatness of mind, that he always 
appeared superior to any degree of honor he might have attained. As soon as they had created 
him emperor, he proceeded forthwith to Constantinople; and thirty days after his own 
possession of the imperial dignity, he made his brother Valens his colleague in the empire. 
They both professed Christianity, but did not hold the same Christian creed: for Valentinian 
respected the Nicene Creed; but Valens was prepossessed in favor of the Arian opinions. 
And this prejudice was caused by his having been baptized by Eudoxius bishop of Con- 
stantinople. Each of them was zealous for the views of his own party; but when they had 
attained sovereign power, they manifested very different dispositions. For previously in the 
reign of Julian, when Valentinian was a military tribune, and Valens held a command in 
the emperor’s guards, they both proved their zeal for the faith; for being constrained to 
sacrifice, they chose rather to give up their military rank than to do so and renounce 
Christianity. 569 Julian, however, knowing the necessity of the men to the state, retained 
them in their respective places, as did also Jovian, his successor in the empire. Later on, being 
invested with imperial authority, they were in accord in the management of public affairs, 
but as regards Christianity, as I have said, they behaved themselves very differently: for 
Valentinian while he favored those who agreed with him in sentiment, offered no violence 
to the Arians; but Valens, in his anxiety to promote the Arian cause, grievously disturbed 
those who differed from them, as the course of our history will show. Now at that time 
Liberius presided over the Roman church; and at Alexandria Athanasius was bishop of the 
Homoousians, while Lucius had been constituted George’s successor by the Arians. At An- 
tioch Euzoius was at the head of the Arians: but the Homoousians were divided into two 
parties, of one of which Paulinus was chief, and Melitius of the other. Cyril was again con- 
stituted over the church at Jerusalem. The churches at Constantinople were under the gov- 
ernment of Eudoxius, who openly taught the dogmas of Arianism, but the Homoousians 
had but one small edifice in the city wherein to hold their assemblies. Those of the Macedo- 

569 Cf. III. 13. 


After Jovian's Death, Valentinian is proclaimed Emperor, and takes his Brother... 

nian heresy who had dissented from the Acacians at Seleucia, then retained their churches 


in every city. Such was the state of ecclesiastical affairs at that time. 

570 Cf. V. 3. 


Valentinian goes into the West; Vctlens remains at Constantinople, and grants. . . 

Chapter II. — Valentinian goes into the West; Valens remains at Constantinople, and grants 

the Request of the Macedonians to hold a Synod, but persecutes the Adherents of the 


Of the emperors one, i.e. Valentinian, speedily went to the western parts of the empire; 
for the exigencies of affairs required his presence thither: meanwhile Valens, residing at 
Constantinople, was addressed by most of the prelates of the Macedonion heresy, requesting 
that another Synod might be convened for the correction of the creed. The emperor supposing 
they agreed in sentiment with Eudoxius and Acacius, gave them permission to do so: they 
therefore made preparations for assembling in the city of Lampsacus. But Valens proceeded 
with the utmost despatch toward Antioch in Syria, fearing lest the Persians should violate 
the treaty into which they had entered for thirty years in the reign of Jovian, and invade the 
Roman territories. They however remained quiet; and Valens employed this season of ex- 
ternal tranquillity to prosecute a war of extermination against all who acknowledged the 
homoousion. Paulinus their bishop, because of his eminent piety, he left unmolested. Meli- 
tius he punished with exile: and all the rest, as many as refused to communicate with Euzo'ius, 
he drove out from the churches in Antioch, and subjected to various losses and punishments. 
It is even affirmed that he caused many to be drowned in the river Orontes, which flows by 
that city. 


While Valens persecutes the Orthodox Christians in the East, a Usurper arises... 

Chapter III. — While Valens persecutes the Orthodox Christians in the East, a Usurper arises 
at Constantinople named Procopius: and at the Same Time an Earthquake and Inundation 
take Place and injure Several Cities. 

While Valens was thus occupied in Syria, there arose a usurper at Constantinople named 
Procopius; who having collected a large body of troops in a very short time, meditated an 
expedition against the emperor. This intelligence created extreme solicitude in the emperor’s 
mind and checked for a while the persecution he had commenced against all who dared to 
differ from him in opinion. And while the commotions of a civil war were painfully anticip- 
ated, an earthquake occurred which did much damage to many cities. The sea also changed 
its accustomed boundaries, and overflowed to such an extent in some places, that vessels 
might sail where roads had previously existed; and it retired so much from other places, 
that the ground became dry. These events happened in the first consulate of the two emper- 

571 365 a.d. 


The Macedonians hold a Synod at Lampsacus, during a Period of Both Secular... 

Chapter IV. — The Macedonians hold a Synod at Lampsacus, during a Period of Both Secular 
and Ecclesiastical Agitation; and after confirming the Antiochian Creed, and anathemat- 
izing that promulgated at Ariminum, they again ratify the Deposition of Acacius and 

While these events were taking place there could be no peace either in the church or in 
the state. Now those who had been empowered by the emperor to hold a council assembled 
at Lampsacus in the consulate just mentioned: this was seven years after the council of 
Seleucia. There, after confirming the Antiochian Creed, to which they had subscribed at 
Seleucia, they anathematized that which had been set forth at Ariminum by their 
former associates in opinion. They moreover again condemned the party of Acacius and 
Eudoxius, and declared their deposition to have been just . 574 The civil war which was then 
impending prevented Eudoxius bishop of Constantinople from either gainsaying or revenging 
these determinations. Wherefore Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus and his adherents became for 
a little while the stronger party; inasmuch as they supported the views of Macedonius, which 
although before but obscurely known, acquired great publicity through the Synod at 
Lampsacus. This Synod, I think, was the cause of the increase of the Macedonians in the 
Hellespont; for Lampsacus is situated in one of the narrow bays of the Hellespont. Such was 
the issue of this council. 

572 Cf. II. 40. 

573 Cf. II. 37. Six years previous to the point of time reached by the historian thus far; i.e. 359 a.d. 

574 Cf. II. 40, end. 


Engagement between Valens and Procopius near Nacolia in Phrygia; after which. . . 

Chapter V. — Engagement between Valens and Procopius near Nacolia in Phrygia; after which 
the Usurper is betrayed by his Chief Officers, and with them put to Death. 


Under the consulate of Gratian and Dagalaifus in the following year, the war was 
begun. For as soon as the usurper Procopius, leaving Constantinople, began his march at 
the head of his army toward the emperor, Valens hastened from Antioch, and came to an 
engagement with him near a city of Phrygia, called Nacolia. In the first encounter he was 
defeated; but soon after he took Procopius alive, through the treachery of Agilo and Gomari- 
us, two of his generals, whom he subjected to the most extraordinary punishments. The 
traitors he caused to be executed by being sawn asunder, disregarding the oaths he had 
sworn to them. Two trees standing near each other being forcibly bowed down, one of the 
usurper’s legs was fastened to each of them, after which the trees being suddenly permitted 
to recover their erect position, by their rise rent the tyrant into two parts; and thus torn 
apart the usurper perished. 

575 366 a.d. 

576 Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum, XXVI. ix. 8-10, says that Florentius and Barchalba, after the 
fight at Nacolia, delivered Procopius bound to Valens, and that Procopius was immediately beheaded, and 
Florentius and Barchalba soon underwent the same punishment. Philostorgius also (IX.) relates that Procopius 
was beheaded, and that Florentius, who delivered him to Valens, was burnt. 


After the Death of Procopius Valens constrains those who composed the Synod,... 

Chapter VI. — After the Death of Procopius Valens constrains those who composed the Synod, 

and All Christians, to profess Arianism. 

The emperor having thus successfully terminated the conflict, immediately began to 
move against the Christians, with the design of converting every sect to Arianism. But he 
was especially incensed against those who had composed the Synod at Lampsacus, not only 
on account of their deposition of the Arian bishops, but because they had anathematized 
the creed published at Ariminum. On arriving therefore at Nicomedia in Bithynia, he sent 


for Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, who, as I have before said, closely adhered to the opinions 

of Macedonius. Therefore the emperor having convened a council of Arian bishops, com- 
manded Eleusius to give his assent to their faith. At first he refused to do so, but on being 
terrified with threats of banishment and confiscation of property, he was intimidated and 
assented to the Arian belief. Immediately afterwards, however, he repented; and returning 
to Cyzicus, bitterly complained in presence of all the people, asserting that his quiescence 
was due to violence, and not of his own choice. He then exhorted them to seek another 
bishop for themselves, since he had been compelled to renounce his own opinion. But the 
inhabitants of Cyzicus loved and venerated him too much to think of losing him; they 
therefore refused to be subject to any other bishop, nor would they permit him to retire 
from his own church: and thus continuing under his oversight, they remained steadfast in 
their own heresy. 

577 Cf. II. 38. 


Eunomius supersedes Eleusius the Macedonian in the See ofCyzicus, His Origin... 

Chapter VII.— Eunomius supersedes Eleusius the Macedonian in the See of Cyzicus, His 

Origin and Imitation ofAetius, whose Amanuensis he had been. 

The bishop of Constantinople being informed of these circumstances, constituted Eun- 
omius bishop of Cyzicus, inasmuch as he was a person able by his eloquence to win over 
the minds of the multitude to his own way of thinking. On his arrival at Cyzicus an imperial 
edict was published in which it was ordered that Eleusius should be ejected, and Eunomius 
installed in his place. This being carried into effect, those who attached themselves to 
Eleusius, after erecting a sacred edifice without the city, assembled there with him. But 
enough has been said of Eleusius: let us now give some account of Eunomius. He had been 
secretary to Aetius, surnamed Atheus, of whom we have before spoken, and had learnt 
from conversing with him, to imitate his sophistical mode of reasoning; being little aware 
that while exercising himself in framing fallacious arguments, and in the use of certain in- 
significant terms, he was really deceiving himself. This habit however inflated him with 
pride, and he fell into blasphemous heresies, and so became an advocate of the dogmas of 
Arius, and in various ways an adversary to the doctrines of truth. And as he had but a very 
slender knowledge of the letter of Scripture, he was wholly unable to enter into the spirit of 
it. Yet he abounded in words, and was accustomed to repeat the same thoughts in different 
terms, without ever arriving at a clear explanation of what he had proposed to himself. Of 
this his seven books On the Apostle’s Epistle to the Romans, on which he bestowed a quantity 
of vain labor, is a remarkable proof: for although he has employed an immense number of 
words in the attempt to expound it, he has by no means succeeded in apprehending the 
scope and object of that epistle. All other works of his extant are of a similar character, in 
which he that would take the trouble to examine them, would find a great scarcity of sense, 


amidst a profusion of verbiage. This Eunomius Eudoxius promoted to the see of Cyzicus; 
who being come thither, astonished his auditors by the extraordinary display of his ‘dialectic’ 
art, and thus a great sensation was produced at Cyzicus. At length the people unable to endure 
any longer the empty and assumptions parade of his language, drove him out of their city. 
He therefore withdrew to Constantinople, and taking up his abode with Eudoxius, was re- 


garded as a titular bishop. But lest we should seem to have said these things for the sake 

578 II. 35, end. 

579 Sozom. VI. 8, gives the same account; but Philostorgius (V. 3) and Theodoret ( H . E. II. 37 and 39) say 
that Eunomius was made bishop of Cyzicus under the Emperor Constantius immediately after the Synod of 
Seleucia. He was banished by Valens because he favored the usurper Procopius. 

580 axoAalot;, defined by Sophocles ( Greek Lexicon of the Rom. and Byzantine Periods) as suspended. It appears, 
however, that among the civil and military officers in the Roman system there were some who bore the title 
without being concerned in the management of their offices, and that these were termed vacantes and therefore 
that Socrates is using the Greek equivalent of a Latin term and applying it in ecclesiastical matters as its original 


Eunomius supersedes Eleusius the Macedonian in the See ofCyzicus, His Origin... 

of detraction, let us hear what Eunomius himself has the hardihood to utter in his sophist- 
ical discourses concerning the Deity himself, for he uses the following language: ‘God knows 
no more of his own substance than we do; nor is this more known to him, and less to us: 
but whatever we know about the Divine substance, that precisely is known to God; and on 
the other hand, whatever he knows, the same also you will find without any difference in 
us.’ This and many other similar tedious and absurd fallacies Eunomius was accustomed to 
draw up in utter insensibility to his own folly. On what account he afterwards separated 

co 1 

from the Arians, we shall state in its proper place. 

was applied in civil and military affairs. Cf., on the position of bishops without churches Bingham, Christ. Antiq. 
IV. ii. 14. This system of clerics without charges was abused so much that the Council of Chalcedon (Canon 6) 
forbade further ordination sine titulo. 

581 See chap. 3, and on the Eunomians with their subsequent fortunes, V. 24. 


Of the Oracle found inscribed an a Stone, when the Walls of Chalcedon were... 

Chapter VIII —Of the Oracle found inscribed an a Stone, when the Walls of Chalcedon were 
demolished by Order of the Emperor Valens. 

An order was issued by the emperor that the walls of Chalcedon, a city opposite to 
Byzantium, should be demolished: for he had sworn to do this, after he should have 
conquered the usurper, because the Chalcedonians had sided with the usurper, and had 


used insulting language toward Valens, and shut their gates against him as he passed by 
their city. In consequence of the imperial decree, therefore, the walls were razed and the 
stones were conveyed to Constantinople to serve for the formation of the public baths which 


are called Constantianae. On one of these stones an oracle was found engraven, which 
had lain concealed for a long time, in which it was predicted that when the city should be 
supplied with abundance of water, then should the wall serve for a bath; and that innumerable 
hordes of barbarous nations having overrun the provinces of the Roman empire, and done 
a great deal of mischief, should themselves at length be destroyed. We shall here insert this 
oracle for the gratification of the studious : 584 

‘When nymphs their mystic dance with wat’ry feet 
Shall tread through proud Byzantium’s stately street; 

When rage the city wall shall overthrow, 

Whose stones to fence a bathing-place shall go: 

Then savage lands shall send forth myriad swarms, 

Adorned with golden locks aud burnished arms, 

That having Ister’s silver streams o’erpast, 

Shall Scythian fields and Moesia’s meadows waste. 

But when with conquest flushed they enter Thrace, 

Fate shall assign them there a burial-place.’ 

Such was the prophecy. And indeed it afterwards happened, that when Valens by 
building an aqueduct supplied Constantinople with abundance of water, the barbarous na- 
tions made various irruptions, as we shall hereafter see. But it happened that some explained 

582 Ammianus Marcellinus ( Rerum Gestarum XXVI. viii. 2 seq.) says, ‘From the walls of Chalcedon they 
uttered reproaches to him and insultingly reviled him as Sabaiarius. For, sabaia is a poor drink made of wheat 
or barley in Illyricum (whence Valens came).’ On the Pannonian or Illyrian origin of Valens, see IV. I. It appears 
also that the Pannonians were accustomed to live on poor diet in general. 

583 Sozom. VIII. 21, mentions these baths. Am. Marcellinus {Rerum. Gestarum, XXXI. 1. 4) relates that Valens 
built a bath out of the stones of the walls of Chalcedon. So also Themist. Orat. Decen. ad Valent em, and Gregory 
Nazianzen, Orat. 25; the latter calls it a ‘subterraneous and aerial river.’ Zonaras and Cedrenus, however, affirm 
that the structure built was not a bath, but an aqueduct. Cf. Cedrenus, I. 543 (p. 310, B). 

584 Cedrenus,!. 543 (p. 310, B). 


Of the Oracle found inscribed an a Stone, when the Walls of Chalcedon were... 

the prediction otherwise. For when that aqueduct was completed, Clearchus the prefect of 


the city built a stately bath, to which the name of ‘the Plentiful Water was given, in that 

which is now called the Forum of Theodosius: on which account the people celebrated a 
festival with great rejoicings, whereby there was, say they, an accomplishment of those words 
of the oracle, 

‘their mystic dance with wat’ry feet 
Shall tread through proud Byzantium’s stately street.’ 

But the completion of the prophecy took place afterwards. While the demolition was 
in progress the Constantinopolitans besought the emperor to suspend the destruction of 
the walls; and the inhabitants of Nicomedia and Nicaea sending from Bithynia to Con- 
stantinople, made the same request. But the emperor being exceedingly exasperated against 
the Chalcedonians, was with difficulty prevailed upon to listen to these petitions in their 
favor: but that he might perform his oath, he commanded that the walls should be pulled 
down, while at the same time the breaches should be repaired by being filled up with other 
small stones. Whence it is that in the present day one may see in certain parts of the wall 
very inferior materials laid upon prodigiously large stones, forming those unsightly patches 
which were made on that occasion. So much will be sufficient on the walls of Chalcedon. 

585 AoaJnAeq u5wp. 


Valens persecutes the Novations, because they accepted the Orthodox Fai. . . 

Chapter IX. — Valens persecutes the Novations, because they accepted the Orthodox Faith. 

The emperor however did not cease his persecution of those who embraced the doctrine 
of the homoousion, but drove them away from Constantinople: and as the Novatians acknow- 
ledged the same faith, they also were subjected to similar treatment. He commanded that 
their churches should be shut up, also their bishop they sent into exile. His name was 
Agelius, a person that had presided over their churches from the time of Constantine, and 
had led an apostolic life: for he always walked barefoot, and used but one coat, observing 

r os' 

the injunction of the gospel. But the emperor’s displeasure against this sect was moderated 

by the efforts of a pious and eloquent man named Marcian, who had formerly been in mil- 
itary service at the imperial palace, but was at that time a presbyter in the Novatian church, 
and taught Anastasia and Carosa, the emperor’s daughters, grammar; from the former of 


whom the public baths yet standing, which Valens erected at Constantinople, were named. 
From respect for this person therefore the Novatian churches which had been for some time 
closed, were again opened. The Arians however would not suffer this people to remain un- 
disturbed, for they disliked them on account of the sympathy and love the Novatians 
manifested toward the Homoousians, with whom they agreed in sentiment. Such was the 
state of affairs at that time. We may here remark that the war against the usurper Procopius 

r o Q 

was terminated about the end of May, in the consulate of Gratian and Dagalai'fus. 

586 Matt. x. 10. 

587 Am. Marcellinus ( Rerum Gestarum, XXVI. 4. 14), in speaking of Procopius, the usurper, says: ‘Procopi- 
us. . .resorted to the Anastasian baths, named from the sister of Constantine’; from which it appears that either 
(1) there were two baths of the same name, or (2) the baths here alluded to were named after Constantine’s sister 
and renamed on the occasion of their being repaired or altered, or (3) that Socrates is in error. From the improb- 
abilities connected with (1) and (2) we may infer that (3) is the right view. 

588 366 a.d. 


Birth ofValentinian the Younger. 

Chapter X . — Birth ofValentinian the Younger. 


Soon after the conclusion of this war, and under the same consulate, a son was born 
to Valentinian, the emperor in the Western parts, to whom the same name as his father’s 
was given. For Gratian had been born previously to his becoming emperor. 

589 Sozomen (VI. 10) says the same. There were two Valentinians in the second generation; one a son of 
Valens, and another the son of Valentinian the Elder. According to Idatius’ Fasti, it was the former that was 
born during the consulate of Gratian and Dagalaifus; so that Socrates was in error here, confusing perhaps the 
two younger Valentinians. Valesius adduces other reasons proving the same, which it is unnecessary to repeat 


Hail of Extraordinary Size; and Earthquakes in Bithynia and the Hellesp... 

Chapter XI . — Hail of Extraordinary Size; and Earthquakes in Bithynia and the Hellespont. 

On the 2d of June of the following year, in the consulate 590 of Lupicin and Jovian, there 
fell at Constantinople hail of such a size as would fill a man’s hand. Many affirmed that this 
hail had fallen as a consequence of the Divine displeasure, because of the emperor’s having 
banished several persons engaged in the sacred ministry, those, that is to say, who refused 
to communicate with Eudoxius. 591 During the same consulate, on the 24th of August, the 
emperor Valentinian proclaimed his son Gratian Augustus. In the next year, when 
Valentinian and Valens were a second time consuls, there happened on the 1 1th of October, 
an earthquake in Bithynia which destroyed the city of Nicaea on the eleventh day of October. 
This was about twelve years after Nicomedia had been visited by a similar catastrophe. Soon 
afterwards the largest portion of Germa in the Hellespont was reduced to ruins by another 
earthquake. Nevertheless no impression was made on the mind of either Eudoxius the Arian 
bishop, or the emperor Valens, by these occurrences; for they did not desist from their re- 
lentless persecution of those who dissented from them in matters of faith. Meanwhile these 
convulsions of the earth were regarded as typical of the disturbances which agitated the 
churches: for many of the clerical body were sent into exile, as we have stated; Basil and 
Gregory alone, by a special dispensation of Divine Providence, being on account of their 
eminent piety exempted from this punishment. The former of these individuals was bishop 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia; while Gregory presided over Nazianzus, a little city in the vi- 
cinity of Caesarea. But we shall have occasion to mention both Basil and Gregory again in 
the course of our history. 594 

590 367 a.d. 

591 Seell. 43. 

592 368 a.d. 

593 If Socrates means to speak with precision here of the offices occupied by these men during the year which 
his narrative has reached he is mistaken, for Basil became bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia the year following, 
and Gregory was made bishop, not of Nazianzus at this time, but of Sisima. He did not, however, enter on the 
duties of this bishopric as he says in his letters. 

594 Chap. 26. 


The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor's Violence toward them, send a Deputation... 

Chapter XII.— The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor’s Violence toward them, send a 

Deputation to Liberius Bishop of Rome, and subscribe the Nicene Creed. 

When the maintainers of the ‘homoousian’ doctrine had been thus severely dealt with, 
and put to flight, the persecutors began afresh to harass the Macedonians; who impelled by 
fear rather than violence, send deputations to one another from city to city, declaring the 
necessity of appealing to the emperor’s brother, and also to Liberius bishop of Rome: and 
that it was far better for them to embrace their faith, than to communicate with the party 
of Eudoxius. They sent for this purpose Eustathius bishop of Sebastia, who had been several 
times deposed, Silvan us of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabala in the same 
province; charging them to dissent in nothing from Liberius concerning the faith, but to 
enter into communion with the Roman church, and confirm the doctrine of the homoousian. 
These persons therefore proceeded to Old Rome, carrying with them the letters of those 
who had separated themselves from Acacius at Seleucia. To the emperor they could not 
have access, he being occupied in the Gauls with a war against the Sarmatae; but they 
presented their letters to Liberius. He at first refused to admit them; saying they were of the 
Arian faction, and could not possibly be received into communion by the church, inasmuch 
as they had rejected the Nicene Creed. To this they replied that by change of sentiment they 
had acknowledged the truth, having long since renounced the Anomoean 595 Creed, and 
avowed the Son to be in every way ‘like the Father’: moreover that they considered the terms 
like’ ( homoios ) and homoousios to have precisely the same import. When they had made 
this statement, Liberius demanded of them a written confession of their faith; and they ac- 
cordingly presented him a document in which the substance of the Nicene Creed was inserted. 
I have not introduced here, because of their length, the letters from Smyrna, Asia, and from 
Pisidia, Isauria, Pamphylia, and Lycia, in all which places they had held Synods. The written 
profession which the deputies sent with Eustathius, delivered to Liberius, is as follows: 

‘To our Lord, Brother, and fellow-Minister Liberius: Eustathius, Theophilus, and Sil- 
vanus, salutations in the Lord. 

‘On account of the insane opinion of heretics, who cease not to introduce occasions of 
offense into the catholic churches, we being desirous of checking their career, come forward 
to express our approbation of the doctrines recognized the Synod of orthodox bishops which 
has been convened at Lampsacus, Smyrna, and various other places: from which Synod we 
being constituted a deputation, bring a letter to your benignity and to all the Italian and 
Western bishops, by which we declare that we hold and maintain the catholic faith which 
was established in the holy council at Nicaea under the reign of Constantine of blessed 
memory, by three hundred and eighteen bishops, and has hitherto continued entire and 
unshaken; in which creed the term homoousios is holily and devoutly employed in opposition 

595 See II. 35, and Hefele, Hist, of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 218 seq. 


The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor's Violence toward them, send a Deputation... 

to the pernicious doctrine of Arius. We therefore, together with the aforesaid persons whom 
we represent, profess under our own hand, that we have held, do hold, and will maintain 
the same faith even unto the end. We condemn Arius, and his impious doctrine, with his 
disciples, and those who agree with his sentiments; as also the same heresy of Sabellius , 596 
the Patripassians , 597 the Marcionites , 598 the Photinians , 599 the Marcellians , 600 that of Paul 
of Samosata , 601 and those who countenance such tenets; in short all the heresies which are 
opposed to the aforesaid sacred creed, which was piously and in a catholic spirit set forth 
by the holy fathers at Nicaea. But we especially anathematize that form of the creed which 


was recited at the Synod of Ariminum, “ as altogether contrary to the before-mentioned 
creed of the holy Synod of Nicaea, to which the bishops at Constantinople affixed their sig- 
natures, being deceived by artifice and perjury, by reason of its having been brought from 


Nice, a town of Thrace. Our own creed, and that of those whose delegates we are, is this: 
“‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible: 
and in one only-begotten God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; begotten of the Father; 
that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; 
begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were 
made which are in heaven, and which are upon the earth: who for us men, and for our sal- 
vation, descended, became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, and rose again the third 
day; ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] 
also in the Holy Spirit. But the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God anathematizes those 
who assert that ‘there was a time when he was not,’ and ‘that he was not before he was be- 
gotten,’ and that ‘he was made of things which are not’; or those that say ‘the Son of God is 
of another hypostasis’ or ‘substance than the Father,’ or that ‘he is mutable, or susceptible 
of change.’ 

596 See I. 5, and note. 

597 The Patripassians were a sect of the early Church (end of second century), who asserted the identity of 
the Son with the Father. And, as on being confronted with the question whether it was the Father that suffered 
on the cross they answered in the affirmative, they were called Patripassians. Their leader was Praxeas. See 
Tertull. Adv. Praxeam (the whole treatise is meant to be a refutation of this heresy). 

598 Followers of the well-known Gnostic leader of the second century. For his peculiar views, see Tertull. 
Adv. Marcionem; Epiphan. Hceres. XLII.; also Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog., under Marcion, and eccle- 
siastical histories. 

599 Cf. II. 18 and 29. 

600 Cf. I. 36; II. 20. 

601 See note, I. 36. 

602 See II. 37. 

See II. 37. As it appears from V. 4, Liberius was actually deceived by the artifice. 



The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor's Violence toward them, send a Deputation... 

‘“I, Eustathius, bishop of the city of Sebastia, with Theophilus and Silvanus, delegates 
of the Synod of Lampsacus, Smyrna, and other places, have voluntarily subscribed this 
confession of faith with our own hands. And if, after the publication of this creed, any one 
shall presume to calumniate either us, or those who sent us, let him come with the letters 
of your holiness before such orthodox bishops as your sanctity shall approve of, and bring 
the matter to an issue with us before them; and if any charge shall be substantiated, let the 
guilty be punished.’” 

Liberius having securely pledged the delegates by this document, received them into 
communion, and afterwards dismissed them with this letter: 

The Letter of Liberius Bishop of Rome, to the Bishops of the Macedonians. 

To our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Evethius, Cyril, Hyperechius, Uranius, 
Heron, Elpidius, Maximus, Eusebius, Eucarpius, Heortasius, Neon, Eumathius, Faustinus, 
Proclinus, Pasinicus, Arsenius, Severus, Didymion, Brittanius, Callicrates, Dalmatius, 
/Edesius, Eustochius, Ambrose, Gelonius, Pardalius, Macedonius, Paul, Marcellus, Heraclius, 
Alexander, Adolius, Marcian, Sthenelus, John, Macer, Charisius, Silvanus, Photinus, Anthony, 
Aythus, Celsus, Euphranon, Milesius, Patricius, Severian, Eusebius, Eumolpius, Athanasius, 
Diophantus, Menodorus, Diodes, Chrysampelus, Neon, Eugenius, Eustathius, Callicrates, 
Arsenius, Eugenius, Martyrius, Hieracius, Leontius, Philagrius, Lucius, and to all the orthodox 
bishops in the East, Liberius bishop of Italy, and the bishops throughout the West, salutations 
always in the Lord. 

Your letters, beloved brethren, resplendent with the light of faith, delivered to us by our 
highly esteemed brethren, the bishops Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, brought to us 
the much longed-for joy of peace and concord: and this chiefly because they have demon- 
strated and assured us that your opinion and sentiments are in perfect harmony with those 
both of our insignificance, and also with those of all the bishops in Italy and the Western 
parts. We knowledge this to be the Catholic and Apostolic faith, which until the time of the 
Synod at Nicaea had continued unadulterated and unshaken. This creed your legates have 
professed that they themselves hold, and to our great joy have obliterated every vestige and 
impression of an injurious suspicion, by attesting it not only in word, but also in writing. 
We have deemed it proper to subjoin to these letters a copy of this their declaration, lest we 
should leave any pretext to the heretics for entering into a fresh conspiracy, by which they 
might stir up the smouldering embers of their own malice, and according to their custom, 
rekindle the flames of discord. Moreover our most esteemed brethren, Eustathius, Silvanus, 
and Theophilus, have professed this also, both that they themselves, and also your love, have 
always held, and will maintain unto the last, the creed approved of at Nicaea by 3 1 8 Orthodox 
Bishops; which contains the perfect truth, and both confutes and overthrows the whole 
swarm of heretics. For it was not of their own will, but by Divine appointment that so great 


The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor's Violence toward them, send a Deputation... 

a number of bishops was collected against the madness of Arius, as equaled that of those by 
whose assistance blessed Abraham through faith destroyed so many thousand of his en- 
emies . 604 This faith being comprehended in the terms hypostasis and homoousios, like a 
strong and impregnable fortress checks and repels all the assaults and vain machinations 
of Arian perverseness. Wherefore when all the Western bishops were assembled at Ariminum, 
whither the craft of the Arians had drawn them, in order that either by deceptive persuasions, 
or to speak more truly, by the coercion of the secular power, they might erase, or indirectly 
revoke what had been introduced into the creed with so much prudence, their subtlety was 
not of the least avail. For almost all those who at Ariminum were either allured into error, 
or at that time deceived, have since taken a right view of the matter; and after anathematizing 
the exposition of faith set forth by those who were convened at Ariminum, have subscribed 
the Catholic and Apostolic Creed which was promulgated at Nicsea. They have entered into 
communion with us, and regard the dogma of Arius and his disciples with increased aversion, 
and are even indignant against it. Of which fact when the legates of your love saw the in- 
dubitable evidences, they annexed yourselves to their own subscription; anathematizing 
Arius, and what was transacted at Ariminum against the creed ratified at Nicaea, to which 
even you yourselves, beguiled by perjury, were induced to subscribe. Whence it appeared 
suitable to us to write to your love, and to accede to your just request, especially since we 
are assured by the profession of your legates that the Eastern bishops have recovered their 
senses, and now concur in opinion with the orthodox of the West. We further give you to 
understand, lest ye should be ignorant of it, that the blasphemies of the Synod of Ariminum 
have been anathematized by those who seem to have been at that time deceived by fraud, 
and that all have acknowledged the Nicene Creed. It is fit therefore that it should be made 
generally known by you that such as have had their faith vitiated by violence or guile, may 
now emerge from heretical darkness into the Divine light of catholic liberty. Moreover 
whosoever of them, after this council, shall not disgorge the poison of corrupt doctrine, by 
abjuring all the blasphemies of Arius, and anathematizing them, let them know that they 
are themselves, together with Arius and his disciples and the rest of the serpents, whether 
Sabellians, Patripassians, or the followers of any other heresy, dissevered and excommunic- 
ated from the assemblies of the Church, which does not admit of illegitimate children. May 
God preserve you steadfast, beloved brethren. 

When the adherents of Eustathius had received this letter, they proceeded to Sicily, 
where they caused a Synod of Sicilian bishops to be convened, and in their presence avowed 
the homoousian faith, and professed their adherence to the Nicene Creed: then having re- 
ceived from them also a letter to the same effect as the preceding, they returned to those 
who had sent them. They on their part, on the receipt of the letters of Liberius, sent delegates 

604 Gen. xiv. 14. 


The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor's Violence toward them, send a Deputation... 

from city to city to the prominent supporters of the doctrine of the homoousion, exhorting 
them to assemble simultaneously at Tarsus in Cilicia, in order to confirm the Nicene Creed, 
and terminate all the contentions which had subsequently arisen. And indeed this would 
probably have been accomplished had not the Arian bishop, Eudoxius, who at that time 
possessed great influence with the emperor, thwarted their purpose; for on learning of the 
Synod that had been summoned to meet [at Tarsus], he became so exasperated that he re- 
doubled his persecution against them. That the Macedonians by sending legates to Liberius 
were admitted to communion with him, and professed the Nicene Creed, is attested by 
Sabinus himself, in his Collection of Synodical Transactions. 


Eunomius separates from Eudoxius; a Disturbance is raised at Alexandria... 

Chapter XIII. — Eunomius separates from Eudoxius; a Disturbance is raised at Alexandria 
by Eudoxius, and Athanasius flees into Voluntary Exile again, but in Consequence of the 
Clamors of the People the Emperor recalls and re-establishes him in his See. 

About the same time Eunomius 605 separated himself from Eudoxius, and held assemblies 
apart, because after he had repeatedly entreated that his preceptor Aetius might be received 
into communion, Eudoxius continued to oppose it. Now Eudoxius did this against his 
preference, for he did not reject the opinion with Aetius since it was the same as his own ; 606 
but he yielded to the prevailing sentiment of his own party, who objected to Aetius as het- 
erodox. This was the cause of the division between Eunomius and Eudoxius, and such was 
the state of things at Constantinople. But the church at Alexandria was disturbed by an edict 
of the praetorian prefects, sent hither by means of Eudoxius. Whereupon Athanasius, 
dreading the irrational impetuosity of the multitude, and fearing lest he should be regarded 
as the author of the excesses that might be committed, concealed himself for four entire 
months in an ancestral tomb. Inasmuch however as the people, on account of their affection 
for him, became seditious in impatience of his absence, the emperor, on ascertaining that 
on this account agitation prevailed at Alexandria, ordered by his letters that Athanasius 
should be suffered to preside over the churches without molestation; and this was the reason 
why the Alexandrian church enjoyed tranquillity until the death of Athanasius. How the 
Arian faction became possessed of the churches after his decease, we shall unfold in the 


course of our history. 

605 Eunomius adopted the standpoint and also the views of Aetius and gave them his own name. Briefly his 
fundamental principle was that the Son is absolutely unlike the Father in substance, and hence a creature among 
other creatures, a mere man. 

606 See II. 35. 

607 Cf. chap. 21. 


The Arians ordain Demophilus after the Death of Eudoxius at Constantinople;... 

Chapter XIV. — The Arians ordain Demophilus after the Death of Eudoxius at Constantinople; 

but the Orthodox Party constitute Evagrius his Successor. 

The Emperor Valens leaving Constantinople again set out towards Antioch; but on his 
arrival at Nicomedia, a city of Bithynia, his progress was arrested by the following circum- 
stances. Eudoxius the bishop of the Arian church who has been in possession of the seat of 
the Constantinopolitan church for nineteen years, died soon after the emperor’s departure 
from that city, in the third consulate 609 of Valentinian and Valens. The Arians therefore 
appointed Demophilus to succeed him; but the Homoousians considering that an opportunity 
was afforded them, elected a certain Evagrius, a person who maintained their own principles; 
and Eustathius, who had been bishop of Antioch, formally ordained him. He had been re- 
called from exile by Jovian, and had at this time privately come to Constantinople, for the 
purpose of confirming the adherents to the doctrine of the homoousion. 

608 Epiphanius Scholasticus reads Setcaeva for Sevcaevvea ; if he be followed, the incumbency of the bishopric 
of Constantinople by Eudoxius lasted seven years. 

609 370 a.d. 


The Emperor banishes Evagrius and Eustathius. The Arians persecute the . . . 

Chapter XV. — The Emperor banishes Evagrius and Eustathius. The Arians persecute the 


When this had been accomplished the Arians renewed their persecution of the Homo- 
ousians: and the emperor was very soon informed of what had taken place, and apprehending 
the subversion of the city in consequence of some popular tumult, immediately sent troops 
from Nicomedia to Constantinople; ordering that both he who had been ordained, and the 
one who had ordained him, should be apprehended and sent into exile in different regions. 
Eustathius therefore was banished to Bizya a city of Thrace; and Evagrius was conveyed to 
another place. After this the Arians, becoming bolder, grievously harassed the orthodox 
party, frequently beating them, reviling them, causing them to be imprisoned, and fined; in 
short they practiced distressing and intolerable annoyances against them. The sufferers were 
induced to appeal to the emperor for protection against their adversaries if haply they might 
obtain some relief from this oppression. But whatever hope of redress they might have 
cherished from this quarter, was altogether frustrated, inasmuch as they thus merely spread 
their grievances before him who was the very author of them. 


Certain Presbyters burnt in a Ship by Order ofValens. Famine in Phrygi... 

Chapter XVI . — Certain Presbyters burnt in a Ship by Order ofValens. Famine in Phrygia. 

Certain pious men of the clerical order, eighty in number, among whom Urbanus, 
Theodore, and Menedemus were the leaders, proceeded to Nicomedia, and there presented 
to the emperor a supplicatory petition, informing him and complaining of the ill-usage to 
which they had been subjected. The emperor was filled with wrath; but dissembled his dis- 
pleasure in their presence, and gave Modestus the prefect a secret order to apprehend these 
persons, and put them to death. The manner in which they were destroyed being unusual, 
deserves to be recorded. The prefect fearing that he should excite the populace to a seditious 
movement against himself, if he attempted the public execution of so many, pretended to 
send the men away into exile. Accordingly as they received the intelligence of their destiny 
with great firmness of mind the prefect ordered that they should be embarked as if to be 
conveyed to their several places of banishment, having meanwhile enjoined on the sailors 
to set the vessel on fire, as soon as they reached the mid sea, that their victims being so des- 
troyed, might even be deprived of burial. This injunction was obeyed; for when they arrived 
at the middle of the Astacian Gulf, the crew set fire to the ship, and then took refuge in a 
small barque which followed them, and so escaped. Meanwhile it came to pass that a strong 
easterly wind blew, and the burning ship was roughly driven but moved faster and was 
preserved until it reached a port named Dacidizus, where it was utterly consumed together 
with the men who were shut up in it. Many have asserted that this impious deed was not 
suffered to go unpunished: for there immediately after arose so great a famine throughout 
all Phrygia, that a large proportion of the inhabitants were obliged to abandon their country 
for a time, and betake themselves some to Constantinople and some to other provinces. For 
Constantinople, notwithstanding the vast population it supplies, yet always abounds with 
the necessaries of life, all manner of provisions being imported into it by sea from various 
regions; and the Euxine which lies near it, furnishes it with wheat to any extent it may re- 
quire . 610 

610 Cf. Herodot. VII. 147. 


The Emperor Valens, while at Antioch, again persecutes the Adherents of. . . 

Chapter XVII.— The Emperor Valens, while at Antioch, again persecutes the Adherents of 
the ‘Homoousion.’ 

The Emperor Valens, little affected by the calamities resulting from the famine, went 
to Antioch in Syria, and during his residence there cruelly persecuted such as would not 
embrace Arianism. For not content with ejecting out of almost all the churches of the East 
those who maintained the ‘homoousian’ opinion, he inflicted on them various punishments 
besides. He destroyed a greater number even than before, delivering them up to many dif- 
ferent kinds of death, but especially drowning in the river. 


Events at Edessa: Constancy of the Devout Citizens, and Courage of a Pious... 

Chapter XVIII.— Events at Edessa: Constancy of the Devout Citizens, and Courage of a Pious 


But we must here mention certain circumstances that occurred at Edessa in Mesopot- 
amia. There is in that city a magnificent church 611 dedicated to St. Thomas the Apostle, 
wherein, on account of the sanctity of the place, religious assemblies are incessantly held. 
The Emperor Valens wishing to inspect this edifice, and having learnt that all who usually 
congregated there were opposed to the heresy which he favored, he is said to have struck 
the prefect with his own hand, because he had neglected to expel them thence also. As the 
prefect after submitting to this ignominy, was most unwillingly constrained to subserve the 
emperor’s indignation against them, — for he did not desire to effect the slaughter of so great 
a number of persons, — he privately suggested that no one should be found there. But no 
one gave heed either to his admonitions or to his menaces; for on the following day they all 
crowded to the church. And when the prefect was going towards it with a large military 
force in order to satisfy the emperor’s rage, a poor woman leading her own little child by 
the hand hurried hastily by, on her way to the church, breaking through the ranks of the 
prefect’s company of soldiers. The prefect irritated at this, ordered her to be brought to him, 
and thus addressed her: ‘Wretched woman! whither are you running in so disorderly a 
manner?’ She replied, ‘To the same place that others are hastening.’ ‘Have you not heard,’ 
said he, ‘that the prefect is about to put to death all that shall be found there?’ ‘Yes,’ said the 
woman, ‘and therefore I hasten that I maybe found there.’ ‘And whither are you dragging 
that little child?’ said the prefect: the woman answered, ‘That he also may be made worthy 

/Cl o 

of martyrdom.’ The prefect on hearing these things, conj ecturing that a similar resolution 

actuated the others who were assembled there, immediately went back to the emperor, and 
informed him that all were ready to die in behalf of their own faith. He added that it would 
be preposterous to destroy so many persons at one time, and thus persuaded the emperor 
to control his wrath. In this way were the Edessenes preserved from being massacred by 
order of their sovereign. 

611 The kind of church here meant was a memorial structure to a martyr, erected where his relics were depos- 
ited, and was called Mapruptov . See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 1. 

612 The same church which above was called a papruptov from its origin, is here called euKrqpioc; tottoi;, 
from its use (‘a place of prayer’). 

613 Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall, chap. 16, quotes a number of extracts from Sulpicius Severus and Ignatius, 
showing the honor in which martyrdom was held in the early church, and the eagerness with which it was sought. 
To check the excess of zeal which was thus manifested, the Council of Elvira, in 306 a.d., passed a canon (its 
sixtieth) to the following intent: ‘that if any one should overthrow idols, and should therefore be put to death, 
inasmuch as this is not written in the Gospel nor found done among the apostles at any time, such a one should 
not be received among the martyrs.’ 


Events at Edessa: Constancy of the Devout Citizens, and Courage of a Pious... 


Slaughter of Many Persons by Valens an Account of their Names, in Consequence. . . 

Chapter XIX. — Slaughter of Many Persons by Valens an Account of their Names, in Con- 
sequence of a Heathen Prediction 614 

The cruel disposition of the emperor was at this time abused by an execrable demon, 
who induced certain curious persons to institute an inquiry by means of necromancy as to 
who should succeed Valens on the throne. To their magical incantations the demon gave 
responses not distinct and unequivocal, but as the general practice is, full of ambiguity; for 
displaying the four letters q, e, o, and d, he declared that the name of the successor of Valens 
began with these; and that it was a compound name. When the emperor was apprised of 
this oracle, instead of committing to God, who alone can penetrate futurity, the decision of 
this matter, in contravention of those Christian principles to which he pretended the most 
zealous adherence, he put to death very many persons of whom he had the suspicion that 
they aimed at the sovereign power: thus such as were named ‘Theodore,’ ‘Theodotus,’ 
‘Theodosius,’ ‘Theodulus,’ and the like, were sacrificed to the emperor’s fears; and among 
the rest was Theodosiolus, a very brave man, descended from a noble family in Spain. Many 
persons therefore, to avoid the danger to which they were exposed, changed their names, 
giving up those which they had received from their parents in infancy as dangerous. This 
will be enough on that subject. 

614 Amm. Marcellinus, Rerum Gertarum, XXIX. I. 29 seq. 


Death of Athanasius, and Elevation of Peter to His See. 

Chapter XX . — Death of Athanasius, and Elevation of Peter to His See . 615 

It must be said that as long as Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was alive, the emperor, 
restrained by the Providence of God, abstained from molesting Alexandria and Egypt: indeed 
he knew very well that the multitude of those who were attached to Athanasius was very 
great; and on that account he was careful lest the public affairs should be hazarded, by the 
Alexandrians, who are an irritable race, being excited to sedition. But Athanasius, after being 
engaged in so many and such severe conflicts on behalf of the church, departed this life in 
the second consulate 616 of Gratian and Probus, having governed that church amidst the 
greatest perils forty-six years. He left as his successor Peter, a devout and eloquent man. 

615 Sozomen, VI. 19; Theodoret, H. E. IV. 20. 

616 371 a.d. But Jerome Chronic. II. (ninth year of Valens), makes the consecration of Athanasius’ successor 
in 373 a.d., and hence also the death of Athanasius himself in the same year. The later date is now universally 


The Arians are allowed by the Emperor to imprison Peter and to set Lucius... 

Chapter XXL — The Arians are allowed by the Emperor to imprison Peter and to set Lucius 

over the See of Alexandria. 

Upon this the Arians, emboldened by their knowledge of the emperor’s religious senti- 
ments, again took courage, and without delay informed him of the circumstance. He was 
then residing at Antioch. Then indeed Euzoius who presided over the Arians of that city, 
eagerly embracing the favorable opportunity thus presented, begged permission to go to 
Alexandria, for the purpose of putting Lucius the Arian in possession of the churches there. 
The emperor acceded to this request, and as speedily as possible Euzoius proceeded forthwith 
to Alexandria, attended by the imperial troops. Magnus, also, the emperor’s treasurer, went 
with him. Moreover an imperial mandate had been issued to Palladius, the governor of 
Egypt, enjoining him to aid them with a military force. Wherefore having apprehended 
Peter, they cast him into prison; and after dispersing the rest of the clergy, they placed Lucius 
in the episcopal chair. 


Silence of Sabinus on the Misdeeds of the Arians; Flight of Peter to Rome;... 

Chapter XXII. — Silence of Sabinus on the Misdeeds of the Arians; Flight of Peter to Rome; 

Massacre of the Solitaries at the Instigation of the Arians. 

Of the outrages perpetrated upon the installation of Lucius, and the treatment of those 
who were ejected, both in the courts and outside of the courts, and how some were subjected 
to a variety of tortures, and others sent into exile even after this excruciating process, Sabinus 
takes not the slightest notice. In fact, being half disposed to Arianism himself, he purposely 
veils the atrocities of his friends. Peter, however, has exposed them, in the letters he addressed 
to all the churches, when he had escaped from prison. For this [bishop] having managed to 
escape from prison, fled to Damasus, bishop of Rome. The Arians though not very numerous, 
becoming thus possessed of the Alexandrian churches soon after obtained an imperial edict 
directing the governor of Egypt to expel not only from Alexandria but even out of the 
country, the favorers of the ‘homoousian’ doctrine, and all such as were obnoxious to Lucius. 
After this they assailed and disturbed and terribly harassed the monastic institutions in the 
desert; armed men rushed in the most ferocious manner upon those who were utterly de- 
fenceless, and who would not lift an arm to repel their violence: so that numbers of unres- 
isting victims were in this manner slaughtered with a degree of wanton cruelty beyond de- 


The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Lif... 

Chapter XXIII. — The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Life. 

Since I have referred to the monasteries of Egypt, it may be proper here to give a brief 
account of them. They were founded probably at a very early period, but were greatly enlarged 
and augmented by a devout man whose name was Ammoun. In his youth this person had 
an aversion to matrimony; but when some of his relatives urged him not to contemn mar- 
riage, but to take a wife to himself, he was prevailed upon and was married. On leading the 
bride with the customary ceremonies from the banquet-room to the nuptial couch, after 


their mutual friends had withdrawn, he took a book containing the epistles of the apostles 

and read to his wife Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, explaining to her the apostle’s admon- 
itions to married persons . 619 Adducing many external considerations besides, he descanted 
on the inconveniences and discomforts attending matrimonial intercourse, the pangs of 
child-bearing, and the trouble and anxiety connected with rearing a family. He contrasted 
with all this the advantages of chastity; described the liberty, and immaculate purity of a life 
of continence; and affirmed that virginity places persons in the nearest relation to the Deity. 
By these and other arguments of a similar kind, he persuaded his virgin bride to renounce 
with him a secular life, prior to their having any conjugal knowledge of each other. Having 
taken this resolution, they retired together to the mountain of Nitria, and in a hut there in- 
habited for a short time one common ascetic apartment, without regarding their difference 
of sex, being according to the apostles, ‘one in Christ.’ But not long after, the recent and 
unpolluted bride thus addressed Ammoun: ‘It is unsuitable,’ said she, ‘for you who practice 
chastity, to look upon a woman in so confined a dwelling; let us therefore, if it is agreeable 
to you, perform our exercise apart.’ This agreement again was satisfactory to both, and so 
they separated, and spent the rest of their lives in abstinence from wine and oil, eating dry 
bread alone, sometimes passing over one day, at others fasting two, and sometimes more. 
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, asserts in his Life of Anthony, that the subject of his 

memoir who was contemporary with this Ammoun, saw his soul taken up by angels after 
his decease. Accordingly, a great number of persons emulated Ammoun’s manner of life, 
so that by degrees the mountains of Nitria and Scitis were filled with monks, an account of 

617 On the growth of the monastic system, see Bingham, Ecd. Antiq. VII.; on its philosophy, briefly, Bennett, 
Christian Archceol. p. 468. Socrates uses Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca copiously in this chapter. 

618 (3t(3Atov ditoaroAtKOv . The books of the New Testament came to be divided into the two classes of ‘gospels’ 
and ‘apostolic epistles,’ the first being called zvayyekiov or euaYyeAra and the second, ontoaroA-Oi;, outoaroA-oi 
or (3t(3Mov omoaroAtKOv . Cf. Epiph. Hcer. XLII. 10. Euthal. Diacon. (Ed. Migne, Vol. LXXXV. col. 720, c. 

619 1 Cor. vii. 10 seq. 

620 Gal. iii. 28. What Socrates here says of Ammoun is attributed by Theodoret ( H . E. IV. 12) to Pelagius, 
who afterwards became bishop of Laodicea. 

621 Athanas. Vit. Anton. 60. 


The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Lif... 

whose lives would require an express work. As, however, there were among them persons 
of eminent piety, distinguished for their strict discipline and apostolic lives, who said and 
did many things worthy of being recorded, I deem it useful to interweave with my history 
a few particulars selected out of the great number for the information of my readers. It is 
said that Ammoun never saw himself naked, being accustomed to say that ‘it became not a 
monk to see even his own person exposed.’ And when once he wanted to pass a river, but 
was unwilling to undress, he besought God to enable him to cross without his being obliged 
to break his resolution; and immediately an angel transported him to the other side of the 
river. Another monk named Didymus lived entirely alone to the day of his death, although 
he had reached the age of ninety years. Arsenius, another of them, would not separate young 
delinquents from communion, but only those that were advanced in age: ‘for,’ said he, ‘when 
a young person is excommunicated he becomes hardened; but an elderly one is soon sensible 
of the misery of excommunication.’ Pior was accustomed to take his food as he walked 
along. As a certain one asked him, ‘Why do you eat thus?’ ‘That I may not seem,’ said he, 
‘to make eating serious business but rather a thing done by the way.’ To another putting the 
same question he replied, ‘Lest even in eating my mind should be sensible of corporeal en- 
joyment.’ Isidore affirmed that he had not been conscious of sin even in thought for forty 
years; and that he had never consented either to lust or anger. Pambos being an illiterate 
man went to some one for the purpose of being taught a psalm; and having heard the first 
verse of the thirty- eighth psalm, ‘I said I will take heed to my ways, that I offend not with 
my tongue,’ he departed without staying to hear the second verse, saying, ‘this one will 
suffice, if I can practically acquire it.’ And when the person who had given him the verse 
reproved him because he had not seen him for the space of six months, he answered that 
he had not yet learnt to practice the verse of the psalm. After a considerable lapse of time, 
being asked by one of his friends whether he had made himself master of the verse, his answer 
was, ‘I have scarcely succeeded in accomplishing it during nineteen years.’ A certain indi- 
vidual having placed gold in his hands for distribution to the poor, requested him to reckon 
what he had given him. ‘There is no need of counting,’ said he, ‘but of integrity of mind.’ 
This same Pambos, at the desire of Athanasius the bishop, came out of the desert to Alexan- 
dria and on beholding an actress there, he wept. When those present asked him why he 
wept, he replied, ‘Two causes have affected me: one is the destruction of this woman; the 
other is that I exert myself less to please my God than she does to please obscene characters.’ 
Another said that ‘a monk who did not work ought to be regarded as on a level with the 
covetous man.’ Piterus was well-informed in many branches of natural philosophy, and was 
accustomed frequently to enter into expositions of the principles sometimes of one and 

622 Cf. chap. 25. 

623 According to the LXX. 


The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Lif... 

sometimes of another department of science, but he always commenced his expositions 
with prayer. There were also among the monks of that period, two of the same name, of 
great sanctity, each being called Macarius; one of whom was from Upper Egypt, the other 
from the city of Alexandria. Both were celebrated for their ascetic discipline, the purity of 
their life and conversation, and the miracles which were wrought by their hands. The 
Egyptian Macarius performed so many cures, and cast out so many devils, that it would re- 
quire a distinct treatise to record all that the grace of God enabled him to do. His manner 
toward those who resorted to him was austere, yet at the same time calculated to inspire 
veneration. The Alexandrian Macarius, while in all respects resembling his Egyptian 
namesake, differed from him in this, that he was always cheerful to his visitors; and by the 
affability of his manners led many young men to asceticism. Evagrius 624 became a disciple 
of these men, acquired from them the philosophy of deeds, whereas he had previously known 
that which consisted in words only. He was ordained deacon at Constantinople by Gregory 
of Nazianzus, and afterwards went with him into Egypt, where he became acquainted with 
these eminent persons, and emulated their course of conduct, and miracles were done by 
his hands as numerous and important as those of his preceptors. Books were also composed 
by him of very valuable nature, one of which is entitled The Monk, or, On Active Virtue; 
another The Gnostic, or, To him who is deemed worthy of Knowledge: this book is divided 
into fifty chapters. A third is designated Antirrheticus, and contains selections from the 
Holy Scriptures against tempting spirits, distributed into eight parts, according to the 
number of the arguments. He wrote moreover Six Hundred Prognostic Problems, and also 
two compositions in verse, one addressed To the Monks living in Communities, and the 
other To the Virgin. Whoever shall read these productions will be convinced of their excel- 
lence. It will not be out of place here, I conceive, to subjoin to what has been before stated, 
a few things mentioned by him respecting the monks. These are his words: 

It becomes us to enquire into the habits of the pious monks who have preceded us, in 
order that we may correct ourselves by their example: for undoubtedly very many excellent 
things have been said and done by them. One of them was accustomed to say, that ‘a drier 
and not irregular diet combined with love, would quickly conduct a monk into the haven 
of tranquillity.’ The same individual freed one of his brethren from being troubled by appar- 
itions at night, by enjoining him to minister while fasting to the sick. And being asked why 
he prescribed this: ‘Such affections,’ said he, ‘are by nothing so effectually dissipated as by 
the exercise of compassion.’ A certain philosopher of those times coming to Anthony the 

624 Cf. Palladius, Hist. Lausiaca, chap. 86. But Palladius says that Evagrius was ordained by Gregory of Nyssa, 
not of Nazianzus. Cf. Sozomen, VI. 30. 

625 Palladius calls this work 'Iepa ‘Sacred [matter].’ Hist. Lausiaca, 86. 

626 Cf. Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. 3. 59, containing also other fragments of Evagrius. 


The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Lif... 

Just, said to him, ‘How can you endure, father, being deprived of the comfort of books?’ 
‘My book, O philosopher,’ replied Anthony, ‘is the nature of things that are made, and it is 
present whenever I wish to read the words of God.’ That ‘chosen vessel, the aged Egyptian 

Macarius, asked me, why the strength of the faculty of memory is impaired by cherishing 
the remembrance of injury received from men; while by remembering those done us by 
devils it remains uninjured? And when I hesitated, scarcely knowing what answer to make, 
and begged him to account for it: ‘Because,’ said he, ‘the former is an affection contrary to 
nature, and the latter is conformable to the nature of the mind.’ Going on one occasion to 
the holy father Macarius about mid-day, and being overcome with the heat and thirst, I 
begged for some water to drink: ‘Content yourself with the shade,’ was his reply, ‘for many 
who are now journeying by land, or sailing on the deep, are deprived even ofthis.’ Discussing 
with him afterwards the subject of abstinence, ‘Take courage, my son,’ said he: ‘for twenty 
years I have neither eaten, drunk, nor slept to satiety; my bread has always been weighed, 
my water measured, and what little sleep I have had has been stolen by reclining myself 
against a wall. The death of his father was announced to one of the monks: ‘Cease your 

blasphemy,’ said he to the person that told him; ‘my father is immortal.’ One of the brethren 
who possessed nothing but a copy of the Gospels, sold it, and distributed the price in food 
to the hungry, uttering this memorable saying — ‘I have sold the book which says, “Sell that 
thou hast and give to the poor.’” There is an island about the northern part of the city of 


Alexandria, beyond the lake called Maria, where a monk from Parembole dwells, in high 

repute among the Gnostics. This person was accustomed to say, that all the deeds of the 
monks were done for one of these five reasons; — on account of God, nature, custom, neces- 
sity, or manual labor. The same also said that there was only one virtue in nature, but that 
it assumes various characteristics according to the dispositions of the soul: just as the light 
of the sun is itself without form, but accommodates itself to the figure of that which receives 
it. Another of the monks said, ‘I withdraw myself from pleasures, in order to cut off the oc- 
casions of anger: for I know that it always contends for pleasures, disturbing my tranquillity 
of mind, and unfitting me for the attainment of knowledge.’ One of the aged monks said 
that ‘Love knows not how to keep a deposit either of provisions or money.’ He added, ‘I 
never remember to have been twice deceived by the devil in the same thing.’ Thus wrote 

/TO 1 

Evagrius in his book entitled Practice. And in that which he called The Gnostic he says, 

627 Acts ix. 15. 

628 Cf. Ezra iv. 10, 11. 

629 Matt. xix. 21. 

630 Parembole is a village near Alexandria, mentioned by Athanasius in his second Apol. against the Arians, 
who names Macarius as its presbyter. 

631 See above, III. 7. 


The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Lif... 

‘We have learned from Gregory the Just, that there are four virtues, having distinct charac- 
teristics: — prudence and fortitude, temperance and justice. That it is the province of prudence 
to contemplate the sacred and intelligent powers apart from expression, because these are 
unfolded by wisdom: of fortitude to adhere to truth against all opposition, and never to turn 

/TO O 

aside to that which is unreal: of temperance to receive seed from the chief husbandman, 
but to repel him who would sow over it seed of another kind: and finally, of justice to adapt 
discourse to every one, according to their condition and capacity; stating some things ob- 
scurely, others in a figurative manner, and explaining others clearly for the instruction of 
the less intelligent.’ That pillar of truth, Basil of Cappadocia, used to say that ‘the knowledge 
which men teach is perfected by constant study and exercise; but that which proceeds from 
the grace of God, by the practice of justice, patience, and mercy.’ That the former indeed is 
often developed in persons who are still subject to the passions; whereas the latter is the 
portion of those only who are superior to their influence, and who during the season of 
devotion, contemplate that peculiar light of the mind which illumines them. That luminary 
of the Egyptians, holy Athanasius, assures us ‘that Moses was commanded to place the table 

zro o 

on the north side. Let the Gnostics therefore understand what wind is contrary to them, 
and so nobly endure every temptation, and minister nourishment with a willing mind to 
those who apply to them.’ Serapion, the angel of the church of the Thmuitae, declared that 
‘the mind is completely purified by drinking in spiritual knowledge’: that ‘charity cures the 
inflammatory tendencies of the soul’; and that ‘the depraved lusts which spring up in it are 
restrained by abstinence.’ ‘Exercise thyself continually,’ said the great and enlightened 
teacher Didymus, ‘in reflecting on providence and judgment; and endeavor to bear in 
memory the material of whatever discourses thou mayst have heard on these topics, for al- 
most all fail in this respect. Thou wilt find reasonings concerning judgment in the difference 
of created forms, and the constitution of the universe: sermons on providence comprehended 
in those means by which we are led from vice and ignorance to virtue and knowledge.’ 
These few extracts from Evagrius we thought it would be appropriate to insert here. 
There was another excellent man among the monks, named Ammonius, who had so little 
interest in secular matters, that when he went to Rome with Athanasius, he chose to invest- 
igate none of the magnificent works of that city, contenting himself with examining the 
Cathedral of Peter and Paul only. This same Ammonius on being urged to enter upon the 
episcopal office, cut off his own right ear, that by mutilation of his person he might disqual- 
ify himself for ordination. But when long afterwards Evagrius, whom Theophilus, bishop 
of Alexandria, wished to make a bishop, having effected his escape without maiming himself 
in any way, afterwards happened to meet Ammonius, and told him jocosely, that he had 

632 Matt. xiii. 24. 

633 Ex. xxvi. 35. 


The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Lif... 

done wrong in cutting off his own ear, as he had by that means rendered himself criminal 
in the sight of God. To which Ammonius replied, ‘And do you think, Evagrius, that you 
will not be punished, who from self-love have cut out your own tongue, to avoid the exercise 
of that gift of utterance which has been committed to you?’ There were at the same time in 
the monasteries very many other admirable and devout characters whom it would be too 
tedious to enumerate in this place, and besides if we should attempt to describe the life of 
each, and the miracles they did by means of that sanctity with which they were endowed, 
we should necessarily digress too far from the object we have in view. Should any one desire 
to become acquainted with their history, in reference both to their deeds and experiences 
and discourses for the edification of their auditors, as well as how wild beasts became subject 
to their authority, there is a specific treatise 634 as on the subject, composed by the monk 
Palladius, who was a disciple of Evagrius, and gives all these particulars in minute detail. In 
that work he also mentions several women, who practiced the same kind of austerities as 
the men that have been referred to. Both Evagrius and Palladius flourished a short time after 
the death of Valens. We must now return to the point whence we diverged. 

634 Hist. Lausiacaty o\. XXXIV. in Migne’s Patrologia Grceca). 


Assault upon the Monks, and Banishment of their Superiors, who exhibit Miraculous... 

Chapter XXIV. — Assault upon the Monks, and Banishment of their Superiors, who exhibit 

Miraculous Power. 

The emperor Valens having issued an edict commanding that the orthodox should be 
persecuted both in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, depopulation and ruin to an immense 
extent immediately followed: some were dragged before the tribunals, others cast into prison, 
and many tortured in various ways, and in fact all sorts of punishments were inflicted upon 
persons who aimed only at peace and quiet. When these outrages had been perpetrated at 
Alexandria just as Lucius thought proper, Euzoius returned to Antioch, and Lucian the 
Arian, attended by the commander-in-chief of the army with a considerable body of troops, 
immediately proceeded to the monasteries of Egypt, where the general in person assailed 
the assemblage of holy men with greater fury even than the ruthless soldiery. On reaching 
these solitudes they found the monks engaged in their customary exercises, praying, healing 
diseases, and casting out devils. Yet they, regardless of these extraordinary evidences of Divine 
power, suffered them not to continue their solemn devotions, but drove them out of the 
oratories by force. Rufinus declares that he was not only a witness of these cruelties, but also 
one of the sufferers. Thus in them were renewed those things which are spoken of by the 


apostle: ‘for they were mocked, and had trial of scourgings, were stripped naked, put in 

bonds, stoned, slain with the sword, went about in the wilderness clad in sheep-skins and 
goat- skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy, wan- 
dering in deserts, in mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.’ In all these things ‘they ob- 
tained a good report’ for their faith and their works, and the cures which the grace of Christ 
wrought by their hands. But as it appears Divine Providence permitted them to endure these 
evils, ‘having for them provided something better, that through their sufferings others 
might obtain the salvation of God, and this subsequent events seem to prove. When therefore 
these wonderful men proved superior to all the violence which was exercised toward them, 
Lucius in despair advised the military chief to send the fathers of the monks into exile: these 
were the Egyptian Macarius, and his namesake of Alexandria, both of whom were accordingly 
banished to an island where there was no Christian inhabitant, and in this island there was 
an idolatrous temple, and a priest whom the inhabitants worshiped as a god. On the arrival 
of these holy men at the island, the demons of that place were filled with fear and trepidation. 
Now it happened at the same time that the priest’s daughter became suddenly possessed by 
a demon, and began to act with great fury, and to overturn everything that came in her way; 
nor was any force sufficient to restrain her, but she cried with a loud voice to these saints 
of God, saying: — ‘Why are ye come here to cast us out from hence also?’ Then did the 

635 Heb. xi. 36-38. 

636 Heb. xi. 40. 


Matt. viii. 29. 


Assault upon the Monks, and Banishment of their Superiors, who exhibit Miraculous... 

men there also display the peculiar power which they had received through Divine grace: 
for having cast out the demon from the maid, and presented her cured to her father, they 
led the priest himself, and also all the inhabitants of the island to the Christian faith. 
Whereupon they immediately brake their images in pieces, and changed the form of their 
temple into that of a church; and having been baptized, they joyfully received instruction 
in the doctrines of Christianity. Thus these marvelous individuals, after enduring persecution 
on account of the ‘homoousian’ faith, were themselves more approved, became the means 
of salvation to others, and confirmed the truth. 


Of Didymus the Blind Man. 

Chapter XXV . — Of Didymus the Blind Man , 638 

About the same period God brought into observation another faithful person, deeming 
it worthy that through him faith might be witnessed unto: this was Didymus, a most admir- 
able and eloquent man, instructed in all the learning of the age in which he flourished. At 
a very early age, when he had scarcely acquired the first elements of learning, he was attacked 
by disease in the eyes which deprived him of sight. But God compensated to him the loss 
of corporeal vision, by bestowing increased intellectual acumen. For what he could not learn 
by seeing, he was enabled to acquire through the sense of hearing; so that being from his 
childhood endowed with excellent abilities, he soon far surpassed his youthful companions 
who possessed the keenest sight. He made himself master of the principles of grammar and 
rhetoric with astonishing facility; and proceeded thence to philosophical studies, dialectics, 
arithmetic, music, and the various other departments of knowledge to which his attention 
was directed; and he so treasured up in his mind these branches of science, that he was 
prepared with the utmost readiness to enter into a discussion of these subjects with those 
who had become conversant therewith by reading books. Not only this, but he was so well 
acquainted with the Divine oracles contained in the Old and New Testament that he com- 
posed several treatises in exposition of them, besides three books on the Trinity. He published 
also commentaries on Origen’s book Of Principles, in which he commends these writings, 

saying that they are excellent, and that those who calumniate their author, and speak 
slightingly of his works, are mere cavilers. ‘For,’ says he, ‘they are destitute of sufficient 
penetration to comprehend the profound wisdom of that extraordinary man.’ Those who 
may desire to form a just idea of the extensive erudition of Didymus, and the intense ardor 
of his mind, must peruse with attention his diversified and elaborate works. It is said that 
after Anthony had conversed for some time with this Didymus, long before the reign of 
Valens, when he came from the desert to Alexandria on account of the Arians, perceiving 
the learning and intelligence of the man, he said to him, ‘Didymus, let not the loss of your 
bodily eyes distress you: for you are deprived of such eyes merely as are the common pos- 
session of gnats and flies; rather rejoice that you have eyes such as angels see with, by which 
the Deity himself is discerned, and his light comprehended.’ This address of the pious An- 
thony to Didymus was made long before the times we are describing: in fact Didymus was 
then regarded as the great bulwark of the true faith, answering the Arians, whose sophistic 
cavilings he fully exposed, triumphantly refuting all their vain subtleties and deceptive 

638 Sozom. III. 15; Theodoret, IV. 26; Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. 4; Jerom. de Script. Eccl. 109. 

639 Mentioned by Jerome, adv. Rufinum, 1. 


Of Basil of Ccesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus. 

Chapter XXVI . — Of Basil of Ccesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus . 640 

Now Providence opposed Didymus to the Arians at Alexandria. But for the purpose of 
confuting them in other cities, it raised up Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus; 
concerning these it will be reasonable to give a brief account in this place. Indeed the uni- 
versally prevalent memory of the men would be enough as a token of their fame; and the 
extent of their knowledge is sufficiently perceptible in their writings. Since, however, the 
exercise of their talents was of great service to the Church, tending in a high degree to the 
maintenance of the catholic faith, the nature of my history obliges me to take particular 
notice of these two persons. If any one should compare Basil and Gregory with one another, 
and consider the life, morals, and virtues of each, he would find it difficult to decide to which 
of them he ought to assign the pre-eminence: so equally did they both appear to excel, 
whether you regard the rectitude of their conduct, or their deep acquaintance with Greek 
literature and the sacred Scriptures. In their youth they were pupils at Athens of Himerius 641 
and Prohaeresius , 642 the most celebrated sophists of that age: subsequently they frequented 
the school of Libanius 643 at Antioch in Syria, where they cultivated rhetoric to the utmost. 
Having been deemed worthy of the profession of sophistry, they were urged by many of 
their friends to enter the profession of teaching eloquence; others would have persuaded 
them to practice law: but despising both these pursuits, they abandoned their former studies, 
and embraced the monastic life. Having had some slight taste of philosophical science from 
him who then taught it at Antioch, they procured Origen’s works, and drew from them the 
right interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; for the fame of Origen was very great and 
widespread throughout the whole world at that time; after a careful perusal of the writings 
of that great man, they contended against the Arians with manifest advantage. And when 
the defenders of Arianism quoted the same author in confirmation, as they imagined, of 
their own views, these two confuted them, and clearly proved that their opponents did not 

640 For full accounts of the lives of these eminent men, see Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog., and the 
sources and literature therein referred to. 

641 Himerius, a native of Prusias (mod. Broussa) in Bithynia, flourished about 360 a.d. as a sophist under 
Julian the Apostate. He published various discourses, which, according to Photius, contained insidious attacks 
on Christianity. Cf. Eunapius, p. 153, under title Prohceresius; Photius, Bibl. Cod. 165. 

642 Prohaeresius was a native of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and taught in Athens a short time before Libanius. 
Cf. Eunapius, Prohceresius, par. 129-162. 

643 This is doubted by Valesius on the ground that Gregory in his autobiography (in verse) says that he was 
thirty years of age when he left Athens, where his friends wished him to stay and teach rhetoric; but if he stayed 
at Athens until the thirtieth year of his age, it is not likely that he could have studied with Libanius after that 
time. So also Ruflnus, H. E. II. 9. 


Of Basil of Ccesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus. 

at all understand the reasoning of Origen. Indeed, although Eunomius , 644 who was then 
their champion, and many others on the side of the Arians were considered men of great 
eloquence, yet whenever they attempted to enter into controversy with Gregory and Basil, 
they appeared in comparison with them ignorant and illiterate. Basil being ordained to the 
office of deacon, was by Meletius, bishop of Antioch, from that rank elevated to the bishopric 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which was his native country. Thither he therefore hastened, 
fearing lest these Arian dogmas should have infected the provinces of Pontus; and in order 
to counteract them, he founded several monasteries, diligently instructed the people in his 
own doctrines, and confirmed the faith of those whose minds were wavering. Gregory being 
constituted bishop of Nazianzus , 645 a small city of Cappadocia over which his own father 
had before presided, pursued a course similar to that which Basil took; for he went through 
the various cities, and strengthened the weak in faith. To Constantinople in particular he 
made frequent visits, and by his ministrations there, comforted and assured the orthodox 
believers, wherefore a short time after, by the suffrage of many bishops, he was made bishop 
of the church at Constantinople. When intelligence of the proceedings of these two zealous 
and devoted men reached the ears of the emperor Valens, he immediately ordered Basil to 
be brought from Caesarea to Antioch ; 646 where being arraigned before the tribunal of the 
prefect, that functionary asked him ‘why he would not embrace the emperor’s faith?’ Basil 
with much boldness condemned the errors of that creed which his sovereign countenanced, 
and vindicated the doctrine of the homoousion: and when the prefect threatened him with 
death, ‘Would,’ said Basil, ‘that I might be released from the bonds of the body for the truth’s 
sake.’ The prefect having exhorted him to reconsider the matter more seriously, Basil is re- 
ported to have said, ‘I am the same to-day that I shall be to-morrow: but I wish that you had 
not changed yourself.’ At that time, therefore, Basil remained in custody throughout the 
day. It happened, however, not long afterwards that Galates, the emperor’s infant son, was 
attacked with a dangerous malady, so that the physicians despaired of his recovery; when 
the empress Dominica, his mother, assured the emperor that she had been greatly disquieted 
in her dreams by fearful visions, which led her to believe that the child’s illness was a chas- 

644 Cf. chap. 7 of the present book. 

645 Rufinus ( H . E. II. 9) says this. But from Gregory’s own works ( Orat . VIII.) it appears that he was not made 
bishop of Nazianzus but assistant to his father, and on the express condition that he should not succeed his 
father. He was first consecrated bishop of Sasimi by Basil the Great, from thence transferred to Constantinople, 
but resigned that bishopric (V. 7) and retired to Nazianzus, where he remained bishop until he chose his successor 

646 Sozomen (VI. 16) says that Valens came from Antioch to Caesarea and ordered Basil to be brought before 
the prefect of the praetorium. This account agrees better with what both Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of 
Nyssa say of this experience of Basil. 


Of Basil of Ccesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus. 

tisement on account of the ill treatment of the bishop. The emperor after a little reflection 
sent for Basil, and in order to prove his faith said to him, ‘If the doctrine you maintain is 
the truth, pray that my son may not die.’ ‘If your majesty should believe as I do,’ replied 
Basil, ‘and the church should be unified, the child shall live.’ To these conditions the emperor 
would not agree: ‘God’s will concerning the child will be done then,’ said Basil; as Basil said 
this the emperor ordered him to be dismissed; the child, however, died shortly after. Such 
is an epitome of the history of these distinguished ecclesiastics, both of whom have left us 
many admirable works, some of which Rufinus says he has translated into Latin. Basil had 
two brothers, Peter and Gregory; the former of whom adopted Basil’s monastic mode of 
life; while the latter emulated his eloquence in teaching, and completed after his death Basil’s 
treatise on the Six Days’ Work, which had been left unfinished. He also pronounced at 
Constantinople the funeral oration of Meletius, bishop of Antioch; and many other orations 
of his are still extant. 


Of Gregory Thaumaturgus ( the Wonder-Worker). 

Chapter XXVII . — Of Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder-Worker). 

But since from the likeness of the name, and the title of the books attributed to Gregory, 
persons are liable to confound very different parties, it is important to notice that Gregory 
of Pontus is a different person. He was a native of Neocaesarea in Pontus, of greater antiquity 
than the one above referred to, inasmuch as he was a disciple of Origen . 647 This Gregory’s 
fame was celebrated at Athens, at Berytus, throughout the entire diocese of Pontus, and I 
might almost add in the whole world. When he had finished his education in the schools 
of Athens, he went to Berytus to study civil law, where hearing that Origen expounded the 
Holy Scriptures at Caesarea, he quickly proceeded thither; and after his understanding had 
been opened to perceive the grandeur of these Divine books, bidding adieu to all further 
cultivation of the Roman laws, he became thenceforth inseparable from Origen, from whom 
having acquired a knowledge of the true philosophy, he was recalled soon after by his parents 
and returned to his own country; and there, while still a layman, he performed many miracles, 
healing the sick, and casting out devils even by his letters, insomuch that the pagans were 
no less attracted to the faith by his acts, than by his discourses. Pamphilus Martyr mentions 
this person in the books which he wrote in defence of Origen; to which there is added a 
commendatory oration of Gregory’s, composed in praise of Origen, when he was under the 
necessity of leaving him. There were then, to be brief, several Gregories: the first and most 
ancient was the disciple of Origen; the second was the bishop of Nazianzus; the third was 


Basil’s brother; and there was another Gregory whom the Arians constituted bishop 
during the exile of Athanasius. But enough has been said respecting them. 

647 On Gregory Thaumaturgus in general, see Euseb. H. E. VI. 30. 



Of Novatus and his Followers. The Novations of Phrygia alter the Time of... 

Chapter XXVIII. — Of Novatus and his Followers. The Novations of Phrygia alter the Time 

of keeping Easter, following Jewish Usage. 

About this time the Novatians 649 inhabiting Phrygia changed the day for celebrating 
the Feast of Easter. How this happened I shall state, after first explaining the reason of the 
strict discipline which is maintained in their church, even to the present day, in the provinces 
of Phrygia and Paphlagonia. Novatus , 650 a presbyter of the Roman Church, separated from 
it, because Cornelius the bishop received into communion believers who had sacrificed 
during the persecution which the Emperor Decius 651 had raised against the Church. Having 
seceded on this account, on being afterwards elevated to the episcopacy by such bishops as 
entertained similar sentiments, he wrote to all the churches that ‘they should not admit 
to the sacred mysteries those who had sacrificed; but exhorting them to repentance, leave 
the pardoning of their offense to God, who has the power to forgive all sin.’ Receiving such 
letters, the parties in the various provinces, to whom they were addressed, acted according 
to their several dispositions and judgments. As he asked that they should not receive to the 

/T (TO 

sacraments those who after baptism had committed any deadly sin this appeared to some 
a cruel and merciless course: but others received the rule as just and conducive to the 
maintenance of discipline, and the promotion of greater devotedness of life. In the midst 
of the agitation of this question, letters arrived from Cornelius the bishop, promising indul- 
gence to delinquents after baptism. Thus as these two persons wrote contrary to one another, 
and each confirmed his own procedure by the testimony of the Divine word, as it usually 
happens, every one identified himself with that view which favored his previous habits and 
inclinations. Those who had pleasure in sin, encouraged by the license then granted them, 
took occasion from it to revel in every species of criminality. Now the Phrygians appear to 
be more temperate than other nations, and are seldom guilty of swearing. The Scythians, 
on the other hand, and the Thracians, are naturally of a very irritable disposition: while the 

649 On the Novatians and their schism, see Schaff, Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. I. p. 450, 451; Neander, Hist, 
of Christ. Ch. Vol. I. p. 237-248. On Socrates’ attitude toward Novatianism, see Introd. p. ix. Cf. also Euseb. H. 
E. VI. 43. 

650 His right name was Novatian, although the Greek writers call him uniformly Navatus, ignoring or con- 
fusing him with another person whose name is strictly Novatus. Cf. Jerome, Scriptor. Eccles. LXX.; also Smith 
and Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog. 

651 This was the great Seventh Persecution, and the first which historians agree in calling strictly ‘general.’ It 
took place in 249-251 a.d., and consisted in a systematic effort to uproot Christianity throughout the empire. 
Many eminent Christians were put to death during its course, and others, among whom was Origen, were tortured. 
Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, III.; Gregory of Nyssa, Vita Gregori Thaumaturg. III.; Euseb. H. E. VI. 40-42. 

652 Cf. I. 10. 

653 1 John v. 16, 17. 


Of Novcitus and his Followers. The Novations of Phrygia alter the Time of... 

inhabitants of the East are addicted to sensual pleasures. But the Paphlagonians and 
Phrygians are prone to neither of these vices; nor are the sports of the circus and theatrical 
exhibitions in much estimation among them even to the present day. And for this reason, 
it seems to me, these people, as well as others of the same character, so readily assented to 
the letters then written by Novatus. Fornication and adultery are regarded among them as 
the grossest enormities: and it is well known that there is no race of men on the face of the 
earth who more rigidly govern their passions in this respect than the Phrygians and Paph- 
lagonians. The same reason I think had force with those who dwelt in the West and followed 
Novatus. Yet although for the sake of stricter discipline Novatus became a separatist, he 
made no change in the time of keeping Easter , 654 but invariably observed the practice that 
obtained in the Western churches. For they celebrate this feast after the equinox, according 
to the usage which had of old been delivered to them when first they embraced Christianity. 
He himself indeed afterwards suffered martyrdom in the reign of Valerian , 655 during the 
persecution which was then raised against the Christians. But those in Phrygia 656 who are 
named after him Novatians, about this period changed the day of celebrating Easter, being 
averse to communion with other Christians even on this occasion. This was effected by 
means of a few obscure bishops of that sect convening a Synod at the village of Pazum, which 
is situated near the sources of the river Sangarius; for there they framed a canon appointing 
its observance on the same day as that on which the Jews annually keep the feast of Un- 
leavened Bread. An aged man, who was the son of a presbyter, and had been present with 
his father at this Synod, gave us our information on this matter. But both Agelius, bishop 
of the Novatians at Constantinople, and Maximus of Nicaea, as also the bishops of Nicomedia 
and Cotyaeum, were absent, although the ecclesiastical affairs of the Novatians were for the 
most part under the control of these bishops. How the church of the Novatians soon after 
was divided into two parties in consequence of this Synod, shall be related in its proper 

/r c n 

course: but we must now notice what took place about the same time in the Western 


654 Cf. I. 8 and note. 

655 The accuracy of this statement is disputed by Valesius, who asserts that the Novatians wrote a book entitled 
The Martyrdom of Novation, but that this book was full of false statements and fables, and had been disproved 
by Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria in the sixth book of his treatise Against the Novatians. Besides, in this Martyr- 
dom of Novation the founder of the sect was not represented as suffering martyrdom, but simply as being a 
‘confessor.’ Cf. I. 8, note 12. 

656 Let it be noted that Novatian was a native of Phrygia and naturally had many followers in that province. 

657 V. 21. 


Damasus ordained Bishop of Rome. Sedition and Loss of Life caused by the... 

Chapter XXIX. — Damasus ordained Bishop of Rome. Sedition and Loss of Life caused by the 
Rivalry of Ursinus. 

While the emperor Valentinian governed in peace, and interfered with no sect, Damasus 


after Liberius undertook the administration of the bishopric at Rome; whereupon a great 

disturbance was caused on the following account . 659 A certain Ursinus, a deacon of that 
church, had been nominated among others when the election of a bishop took place; as 
Damasus 660 was preferred, this Ursinus, unable to bear the disappointment of his hopes, 
held schismatic assemblies apart from the church, and even induced certain bishops of little 
distinction to ordain him in secret. This ordination was made, not in a church , 661 but in a 
retired place called the Palace of Sicine, whereupon dissension arose among the people; 
their disagreement being not about any article of faith or heresy, but simply as to who should 
be bishop. Hence frequent conflicts arose, insomuch that many lives were sacrificed in this 
contention; and many of the clergy as well as laity were punished on that account by Max- 
imin, the prefect of the city. Thus was Ursinus obliged to desist from his pretensions at that 
time, and those who were minded to follow him were reduced to order. 

658 Socrates follows Rufinus here (cf. Rufin. H. E. II. 10; but Jerome, Chronicon, puts the consecration of 
Damasus as bishop of Rome in the third year of Valentinian’s reign, i.e. in 367. Cf. also Clinton, Fasti Rom. Ann. 

659 Am. Marcellinus ( Rerum Gestarum, XXVII. 3. 12, 13) says that during the disturbance one hundred and 
thirty-seven citizens were killed in the course of a single day. 

660 Damusus was a Spaniard by race, native of Mantua, patron of Jerome in his biblical researches. Cf. Jerome, 
ad Damas. Smith & Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog. 

661 On the illegality of ordination without a church, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. 6. 8. Cf. Gregory Nazianz. 
Carm. de Vita. 


Dissension about a Successor to Auxentius, Bishop of Milan. Ambrose, Governor... 

Chapter XXX. — Dissension about a Successor to Auxentius, Bishop of Milan. Ambrose, Gov- 
ernor of the Province, going to appease the Tumult, is by General Consent and with the 

Approval of the Emperor Valentinian elected to the Bishopric of that Church. 

About the same time it happened that " another event took place at Milan well worthy 
of being recorded. On the death of Auxentius, who had been ordained bishop of that church 
by the Arians, the people again were disturbed respecting the election of a successor; for as 
some proposed one person, and others favored another, the city was full of contention and 
uproar. In this state of things the governor of the province, Ambrose by name, who was 
also of consular dignity, dreading some catastrophe from the popular excitement, ran into 
the church in order to quell the disturbance. As he arrived there and the people became 
quiet, he repressed the irrational fury of the multitude by a long and appropriate address, 
by urging such motives as they felt to be right, and all present suddenly came to an unanimous 
agreement, crying out ‘that Ambrose was worthy of the bishopric,’ and demanding his or- 
dination: ‘for by that means only,’ it was alleged, ‘would the peace of the church be secured, 
and all be reunited in the same faith and judgment.’ And inasmuch as such unanimity among 
the people appeared to the bishops then present to proceed from some Divine appointment, 
immediately they laid hands on Ambrose; and having baptized him — for he was then but a 
catechumen — they were about to invest him with the episcopal office. But although Ambrose 
willingly received baptism, he with great earnestness refused to be ordained: upon which 
the bishops referred the matter to the Emperor Valentinian. This prince regarding the uni- 
versal consent of the people as the work of God, sent word to the bishops to do the will of 
God by ordaining him; declaring that ‘his choice was by the voice of God rather than by the 
votes of men.’ Ambrose was therefore ordained; and thus the inhabitants of Milan who were 
divided among themselves, were once more restored to unity. 

662 Synchronization of the events attending the accession of Damasus and Ambrose, the former in Rome, 
the latter at Milan, is dependent on Rufinus. Cf. H. E. II. 1 1 . The events of this chapter more properly fall within 
the time reached by Socrates, i.e. 374 a.d. (see chap. 29, note 1). Hence rightly seven years later than the events 
of the preceding chapter. 

663 A Roman by race, born in 333 a.d., turned to ecclesiastical and literary pursuits in the manner described 
in this chapter. Cf. Sozom. VI. 24; Theodoret, H. E. IV. 6; Rufinus, H. E. II. 11. 


Death ofValentinian. 

Chapter XXXI . — Death ofValentinian. 

The Sarmatae after this having made incursions into the Roman territories, the emperor 
marched against them with a numerous army but when the barbarians understood the for- 
midable nature of this expedition, they sent an embassy to him to sue for peace on certain 
conditions. As the ambassadors were introduced to the emperor’s presence, and appeared 
to him to be not very dignified fellows, he enquired whether all the Sarmatae were such as 
these? As they replied that the noblest personages of their whole nation had come to him, 
Valentinian became excessively enraged, and exclaimed with great vehemence, that ‘the 
Roman empire was indeed most wretched in devolving upon him at a time when a nation 
of such despicable barbarians, not content with being permitted to exist in safety within 
their own limits, dared to take up arms, invade the Roman territories, and break forth into 
open war.’ The violence of his manner and utterance of these words was so great, that all 
his veins were opened by the effort, and all the arteries ruptured; and from the quantity of 
blood which thereupon gushed forth he died. This occurred at Bergition Castle, after Gratian’s 
third consulate 664 in conjunction with Equitius, on the seventeenth day of November, 
Valentinian having lived fifty-four years and reigned thirteen. Upon the decease of 
Valentinian, six days after his death the army in Italy proclaimed his son Valentinian, then 
a young child, emperor, at Acincum, a city of Italy . 665 When this was announced to the 
other two emperors, they were displeased, not because the brother of the one and the 
nephew of the other had been declared emperor, but because the military presumed to 
proclaim him without consulting them, whom they themselves wished to have proclaimed. 
They both, however, ratified the transaction, and thus was Valentinian the younger seated 
on his father’s throne. Now this Valentinian was born of Justina, whom Valentinian the 
elder married while Severa his former wife was alive, under the following circumstances. 
Justus the father of Justina, who had been governor of Picenum under the reign of Constan- 
tius, had a dream in which he seemed to himself to bring forth the imperial purple out of 
his right side. When this dream had been told to many persons, it at length came to the 
knowledge of Constantius, who conjecturing it to be a presage that a descendant of Justus 
would become emperor, caused him to be assassinated. Justina being thus bereft of her 
father, still continued a virgin. Some time after she became known to Severa, wife of the 
emperor Valentinian, and had frequent intercourse with the empress, until their intimacy 
at length grew to such an extent that they were accustomed to bathe together. When Severa 
saw Justina in the bath she was greatly struck with the beauty of the virgin, and spoke of her 
to the emperor; saying that the daughter of Justus was so lovely a creature, and possessed 
of such symmetry of form, that she herself, though a woman, was altogether charmed with 

664 375 a.d. 

665 Rather Pannonia. 


Death ofValentinian. 

her. The emperor, treasuring this description by his wife in his own mind, considered with 
himself how he could espouse Justina, without repudiating Severa, as she had borne him 
Gratian, whom he had created Augustus a little while before. He accordingly framed a law, 
and caused it to be published throughout all the cities, by which any man was permitted to 
have two lawful wives . 666 The law was promulgated and he married Justina, by whom he 
had Valentinian the younger, and three daughters, Justa, Grata, and Galla; the two former 
of these remained virgins: but Calla was afterwards married to the emperor Theodosius the 
Great, who had by her a daughter named Placidia. For that prince had Arcadius and Hon- 
orius by Flaccilla his former wife: we shall however enter into particulars respecting 
Theodosius and his sons in the proper place. 

666 Baronius {Am. IV. 272) and Valesius in this passage agree in looking upon this whole story as a groundless 
fiction which some pretended eyewitness palmed off on Socrates. The law mentioned here is never mentioned 
by any other historian; no vestige of it is found in any of the codes; on the contrary, according to Bingham 
{Christ. Antiq. XVI. 11), bigamy and polygamy were treated with the utmost severity in the ancient Church, and 
the Roman law was very much against them; furthermore, Am. Marcellinus (XXX.) says that Valentinian was 
remarkable for his chastity, both at home and abroad, and Zosimus (IV. 19) that his second wife had been 
married to Magnentius previously [and hence was not a virgin as here stated] and that he married her after the 
death of his first wife; all of which considerations taken together render it historically certain that the story is 
not true. 

667 Cf. V. 2; VI. 1. 


The Emperor Valens, appeased by the Oration ofThemistius the Philosopher;... 

Chapter XXXII. — The Emperor Valens, appeased by the Oration ofThemistius the Philosopher, 
abates his Persecution of the Christians. 

In the meanwhile Valens, making his residence at Antioch, was wholly undisturbed by 
foreign wars; for the barbarians on every side restrained themselves within their own 
boundaries. Nevertheless, he himself waged a most cruel war against those who maintained 
the ‘homoousian’ doctrine, inflicting on them more grievous punishments every day; until 


the philosopher Themistius by his Appealing Oration somewhat moderated his severity. 
In this speech he tells the emperor, ‘That he ought not to be surprised at the difference of 
judgment on religious questions existing among Christians; inasmuch as that discrepancy 
was trifling when compared with the multitude of conflicting opinions current among the 
heathen; for these amount to above three hundred; that dissension indeed was an inevitable 
consequence of this disagreement; but that God would be the more glorified by a diversity 
of sentiment, and the greatness of his majesty be more venerated, from the fact of its not 
being easy to have a knowledge of Him.’ The philosopher having said these and similar 
things, the emperor became milder, but did not completely give up his wrath; for although 
he ceased to put ecclesiastics to death, he continued to send them into exile, until this fury 
of his also was repressed by the following event. 

668 This oration of Themistius is extant in a Latin translation by Dudithius appended to G. Remo’s 
Themisttii Phil, orationes sex augustales, and entitled, ad Valentem, pro Libertate relligionis. The passage alluded 
to by Socrates is found in Dudithius as follows: ‘Wherefore, in regard God has removed himself at the greatest 
distance from our knowledge, and does not humble to the capacity of our understanding; it is a sufficient argument 
that he does not require one and the same law and rule of religion from all persons, but leaves every man a license 
and faculty concerning himself, according to his own, not another man’s, liberty and choice. Whence it also 
happens that a greater admiration of the Deity, and a more religious veneration of his eternal majesty, is en- 
gendered in the minds of men. For it usually comes to pass that we loathe and disregard those things which are 
readily apparent and prostrated to every understanding.’ 


The Goths, under the Reign ofValens, embrace Christianity. 

Chapter XXXIII . — The Goths, under the Reign ofValens, embrace Christianity. 

The barbarians, dwelling beyond the Danube, called the Goths , 669 having engaged in a 
civil war among themselves, were divided into two parties, one of which was headed by 
Fritigernes, the other by Athanaric. When the latter had obtained an evident advantage over 
his rival, Fritigernes had recourse to the Romans, and implored their assistance against his 
adversary. This was reported to the Emperor Valens, and he ordered the troops which were 
garrisoned in Thrace to assist those barbarians who had appealed to him against their more 
powerful countrymen; and by means of this subsidy they won a complete victory over 
Athanaric beyond the Danube, totally routing the enemy. This became the occasion for the 


conversion of many of the barbarians to the Christian religion: for Fritigernes, to express 

his sense of the obligation the emperor had conferred upon him, embraced the religion of 
his benefactor, and urged those who were under his authority to do the same. Therefore it 
is that so many of the Goths are even to the present time infected with the errors of Arianism, 
they having on the occasion preferred to become adherents to that heresy on the emperor’s 
account. Ulfilas, their bishop at that time, invented the Gothic letters, and translating 
the Sacred Scriptures into their own language, undertook to instruct these barbarians in the 
Divine oracles. And as Ulfilas did not restrict his labors to the subjects of Fritigernes, but 
extended them to those who acknowledged the sway of Athanaric also, Athanaric regarding 
this as a violation of the privileges of the religion of his ancestors, subjected those who pro- 
fessed Christianity to severe punishments; so that many of the Arian Goths of that period 
became martyrs. Arius indeed, failing in his attempt to refute the opinion of Sabellius the 

£' 7 ') 

Libyan, fell from the true faith, and asserted the Son of God to be ‘a new God. but the 
barbarians embracing Christianity with greater simplicity of mind despised the present life 
for the faith of Christ. With these remarks we shall close our notice of the Christianized 

669 The fullest and best ancient authors on the origin and history of the Goths are Procopius of Caesarea 
[Historia, IV. -VIII., de Bello Italico adversus Gothos gesto), Jornandes (de Getarum [ Gothorum ] origine et rebus 
gestis), and Isidore Hispalensis ( Historia Gothorum). On the conversion of the Goths to Christianity, see Neander, 
Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. II. p. 125-129, and Schaff, Hist, of the Christ. Ch. Vol. III. p. 640, 641. 

670 For a slightly differing account of the conversion of the Goths and the labors of Ulfilas, see Philostorgius, 
II. 5. 

671 By selecting from the Greek and Latin alphabets such characters as appeared to him to best suit the sounds 
of his native language. For a similar invention of an alphabet as a consequence of the introduction of Christianity, 
compare the Slavonic invented by Cyril and Methodius and a great number of instances in the history of modern 

672 Cf. Deut. xxxii. 7. 


Admission of the Fugitive Goths into the Roman Territories, which caused... 

Chapter XXXIV. — Admission of the Fugitive Goths into the Roman Territories, which caused 

the Emperor’s Overthrow, and eventually the Ruin of the Roman Empire. 

Not long after the barbarians had entered into a friendly alliance with one another, they 
were again vanquished by other barbarians, their neighbors, called the Huns; and being 
driven out of their own country, they fled into the territory of the Romans, offering to be 
subject to the emperor, and to execute whatever he should command them. When Valens 
was made acquainted with this, not having the least presentiment of the consequences, he 
ordered that the suppliants should be received with kindness; in this one instance alone 
showing himself compassionate. He therefore assigned them certain parts of Thrace for 
their habitation, deeming himself peculiarly fortunate in this matter: for he calculated that 
in future he should possess a ready and well-equipped army against all assailants; and hoped 
that the barbarians would be a more formidable guard to the frontiers of the empire even 
than the Romans themselves. For this reason he in the future neglected to recruit his army 
by Roman levies; and despising those veterans who had bravely straggled and subdued his 
enemies in former wars, he put a pecuniary value on the militia which the inhabitants of 
the provinces, village by village, had been accustomed to furnish, ordering the collectors of 
his tribute to demand eighty pieces of gold for every soldier, although he had never before 
lightened the public burdens. This change was the origin of many disasters to the Roman 
empire subsequently. 


Abatement of Persecution against the Christians because of the War with... 

Chapter XXXV. — Abatement of Persecution against the Christians because of the War with 

the Goths. 

The barbarians having been put into possession of Thrace, and securely enjoying that 
Roman province, were unable to bear their good fortune with moderation; but committing 
hostile aggressions upon their benefactors, devastated all Thrace and the adjacent countries. 
When these proceedings came to the knowledge of Valens, he desisted from sending the 
adherents of the homoousion into banishment; and in great alarm left Antioch, and came 
to Constantinople, where also the persecution of the orthodox Christians was for the same 
reason come to an end. At the same time Euzoius, bishop of the Arians at Antioch, departed 
this life, in the fifth consulate of Valens, and the first of Valentinian the younger; and 
Dorotheus was appointed in his place. 

673 376 a.d. 


The Saracens, under Mavia their Queen, embrace Christianity; and Moses,... 

Chapter XXXVI. — The Saracens, under Mavia their Queen, embrace Christianity; and Moses, 

a Pious Monk, is consecrated their Bishop. 

No sooner had the emperor departed from Antioch, than the Saracens , 674 who had before 
been in alliance with the Romans, revolted from them, being led by Mavia their queen, 
whose husband was then dead. All the regions of the East therefore were at that time ravaged 
by the Saracens: but a certain divine Providence repressed their fury in the manner I am 
about to describe. A person named Moses, a Saracen by birth, who led a monastic life in the 
desert, became exceedingly eminent for his piety, faith, and miracles. Mavia the queen of 
the Saracens was therefore desirous that this person should be constituted bishop over her 
nation, and promised on the condition to terminate the war. The Roman generals considering 
that a peace founded on such terms would be extremely advantageous, gave immediate 
directions for its ratification. Moses was accordingly seized, and brought from the desert to 
Alexandria, in order that he might there be invested with the bishopric: but on his present- 
ation for that purpose to Lucius, who at that time presided over the churches in that city, 
he refused to be ordained by him, protesting against it in these words: ‘I account myself in- 
deed unworthy of the sacred office; but if the exigencies of the state require my bearing it, 
it shall not be by Lucius laying his hand on me, for it has been filled with blood.’ When Lucius 
told him that it was his duty to learn from him the principles of religion, and not to utter 
reproachful language, Moses replied, ‘Matters of faith are not now in question: but your 
infamous practices against the brethren sufficiently prove that your doctrines are not 
Christian. For a Christian is “no striker, reviles not, does not fight”; for “it becomes not a 
servant of the Lord to fight.” But your deeds cry out against you by those who have been 
sent into exile, who have been exposed to the wild beasts, and who had been delivered up 
to the flames. Those things which our own eyes have beheld are far more convincing than 
what we receive from the report of another.’ As Moses expressed these and other similar 
sentiments his friends took him to the mountains, that he might receive ordination from 
those bishops who lived in exile there. Moses having thus been consecrated, the Saracen 
war was terminated; and so scrupulously did Mavia observe the peace thus entered into 
with the Romans that she gave her daughter in marriage to Victor the commander-in-chief 
of the Roman army. Such were the transactions in relation to the Saracens. 

674 The name Saracen (lapavcqvot; , perhaps from the Arabic Sharkeen ‘Orientals’) was used vaguely at first; 
the Greek writers of the first centuries gave it to the Bedouin Arabs of Eastern Arabia, while others used it to 
designate the Arab races of Syria and Palestine, and others the Berber of North Eastern Africa, who later conquered 
Spain and Sicily and invaded France. The name became very familiar in Europe during the period of the Crusades. 
On Saracens, consult the interesting fiftieth chapter of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 

675 2 Tim. ii. 24. 


After the Departure of Valens from Antioch, the Alexandrians expel Lucius,... 

Chapter XXXVII. — After the Departure of Valens from Antioch, the Alexandrians expel Lucius, 
and restore Peter, who had come with Letters from Damasus Bishop of Rome. 

— k 

About the same time, as soon as the Emperor Valens left Antioch, all those who had 
anywhere been suffering persecution began again to take courage, and especially those of 
Alexandria. Peter returned to that city from Rome, with letters from Damasus the Roman 
bishop, in which he confirmed the ‘homoousian’ faith, and sanctioned Peter’s ordination. 
The people therefore resuming confidence, expelled Lucius, who immediately embarked 
for Constantinople: but Peter survived his re-establishment a very short time, and at his 
death appointed his brother Timothy to succeed him. 


The Emperor Vctlens is ridiculed by the People on Account of the Goths; undertakes... 

Chapter XXXVIII.— The Emperor Valens is ridiculed by the People on Account of the Goths; 

undertakes an Expedition against them and is slain in an Engagement near Adrianople. 

The Emperor Valens arrived at Constantinople on the 30th of May, in the sixth year of 


his own consulate, and the second of Valentinian the Younger, and found the people in 
a very dejected state of mind: for the barbarians, who had already desolated Thrace, were 
now laying waste the very suburbs of Constantinople, there being no adequate force at hand 
to resist them. But when they undertook to make near approaches, even to the walls of the 
city, the people became exceedingly troubled, and began to murmur against the emperor; 
accusing him of having brought on the enemy thither, and then indolently prolonging the 
struggle there, instead of at once marching out against the barbarians. Moreover at the ex- 
hibition of the sports of the Hippodrome, all with one voice clamored against the emperor’s 
negligence of the public affairs, crying out with great earnestness, ‘Give us arms, and we 
ourselves will fight.’ The emperor provoked at these seditious clamors, marched out of the 
city, on the 11th of June; threatening that if he returned, he would punish the citizens not 
only for their insolent reproaches, but for having previously favored the pretensions of the 
usurper Procopius; declaring also that he would utterly demolish their city, and cause the 
plough to pass over its ruins, he advanced against the barbarians, whom he routed with 
great slaughter, and pursued as far as Adrianople, a city of Thrace, situated on the frontiers 
of Macedonia. Having at that place again engaged the enemy, who had by this time rallied, 
he lost his life on the 9th of August, under the consulate just mentioned, and in the fourth 
year of the 289th Olympiad. Some have asserted that he was burnt to death in a village 
whither he had retired, which the barbarians assaulted and set on fire. But others affirm that 
having put off his imperial robe he ran into the midst of the main body of infantry; and that 
when the cavalry revolted and refused to engage, the infantry were surrounded by the bar- 
barians, and completely destroyed in a body. Among these it is said the emperor fell, but 
could not be distinguished, in consequence of his not having on his imperial habit. He died 
in the fiftieth year of his age, having reigned in conjunction with his brother thirteen years, 
and three years after the death of the brother. This book therefore contains [the course of 
events during] the space of sixteen years. 

676 378 a.d. 



Book V. 


Before we begin the fifth book of our history, we must beg those who may peruse this 
treatise, not to censure us too hastily because having set out to write a church history we 
still intermingle with ecclesiastical matters, such an account of the wars which took place 
during the period under consideration, as could be duly authenticated. For this we have 
done for several reasons: first, in order to lay before our readers an exact statement of facts; 
but secondly, in order that the minds of the readers might not become satiated with the re- 
petition of the contentious disputes of bishops, and their insidious designs against one an- 
other; but more especially that it might be made apparent, that whenever the affairs of the 
state were disturbed, those of the Church, as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered 
also. Indeed whoever shall attentively examine the subject will find, that the mischiefs 
of the state, and the troubles of the church have been inseparably connected; for he will 
perceive that they have either arisen together, or immediately succeeded one another. 
Sometimes the affairs of the Church come first in order; then commotions in the state follow, 
and sometimes the reverse, so that I cannot believe this invariable interchange is merely 
fortuitous, but am persuaded that it proceeds from our iniquities; and that these evils are 
inflicted upon us as merited chastisements, if indeed as the apostle truly says, ‘Some men’s 
sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 

For this reason we have interwoven many affairs of the state with our ecclesiastical history. 
Of the wars carried on during the reign of Constantine we have made no mention, having 
found no account of them that could be depended upon because of their iniquity: but of 
subsequent events, as much information as we could gather from those still living in the 
order of their occurrence, we have passed in rapid review. We have continually included 
the emperors in these historical details; because from the time they began to profess the 
Christian religion, the affairs of the Church have depended on them, so that even the greatest 
Synods have been, and still are convened by their appointment. Finally, we have particularly 
noticed the Arian heresy, because it has so greatly disquieted the churches. Let these remarks 
be considered sufficient in the way of preface: we shall now proceed with our history. 

677 The views here expressed show a crude conception of the vital relation between church and state. The 
very tone of apology which tinges their expression is based on a misconception of the idea of history. But Socrates 
was not below his age in this respect. See Introd., p. xiii. 

678 1 Tim. v. 24. 

679 For the risks of this method, see IV. 31 and note. 


After the Death ofValens the Goths again attack Constantinople, and are... 

Chapter l— After the Death ofValens the Goths again attack Constantinople, and are repulsed 
by the Citizens, aided by Some Saracen Auxiliaries. 

After the Emperor Valens had thus lost his life, in a manner which has never been sat- 


isfactorily ascertained, the barbarians again approached the very walls of Constantinople, 

and laid waste the suburbs on every side of it. Whereat the people becoming indignant 
armed themselves with whatever weapons they could severally lay hands on, and sallied 
forth of their own accord against the enemy. The empress Dominica caused the same pay 
to be distributed out of the imperial treasury to such as volunteered to go out on this service, 
as was usually allowed to soldiers. A few Saracens also assisted the citizens, being confederates, 


who had been sent by Mavia their queen: the latter we have already mentioned. In this 
way the people having fought at this time, the barbarians retired to a great distance from 
the city. 

680 See Gibbon, Dedine and Fall, chap. 26. 

681 Cf. IV. 36. 


The Emperor Gratian recalls the Orthodox Bishops, and expels the Heretics... 

Chapter II.— The Emperor Gratian recalls the Orthodox Bishops, and expels the Heretics from 
the Churches. He takes Theodosius as his Colleague in the Empire. 

Gratian being now in possession of the empire, together with Valentinian the younger, 
and condemning the cruel policy of his uncle Valens towards the [orthodox] Christians, 
recalled those whom he had sent into exile. He moreover enacted that persons of all sects, 
without distinction, might securely assemble together in their churches; and that only the 
Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichaeans should be excluded from the churches. 
Being also sensible of the languishing condition of the Roman empire, and of the growing 
power of the barbarians and perceiving that the state was in need of a brave and prudent 
man, he took Theodosius as his colleague in the sovereign power. This [Theodosius] was 
descended from a noble family in Spain, and had acquired so distinguished a celebrity for 
his prowess in the wars, that he was universally considered worthy of imperial dignity, even 
before Gratian’s election of him. Having therefore proclaimed him emperor at Sirmium a 


city of Illyricum in the consulate of Ausonius and Olybrius, on the 16th of January, he 
divided with him the care of managing the war against the barbarians. 

682 Cf. IV. 7. 

683 Cf. II. 18. 

684 Cf. I. 22. 
379 a.d. 



The Principal Bishops who flourished at that Time. 

Chapter III . — The Principal Bishops who flourished at that Time. 

Now at this time Damasus who had succeeded Liberius then presided over the church 
at Rome. Cyril was still in possession of that at Jerusalem. The Antiochian church, as we 
have stated, was divided into three parts: for the Arians had chosen Dorotheus as the suc- 
cessor of their bishop Euzoius; while one portion of the rest was under the government of 
Paulinus, and the others ranged themselves with Melitius, who had been recalled from exile. 
Lucius, although absent, having been compelled to leave Alexandria, yet maintained the 
episcopal authority among the Arians of that city; the Homoousians there being headed by 
Timothy, who succeeded Peter. At Constantinople Demophilus the successor of Eudoxius 
presided over the Arian faction, and was in possession of the churches; but those who were 


averse to communion with him held their assemblies apart. 

686 Cf. IV. I. 


The Macedonians, who had subscribed the 'Homoousian' Doctrine, return to... 

Chapter IV. — The Macedonians, who had subscribed the ‘Homoousian’ Doctrine, return to 
their Former Error. 

After the deputation from the Macedonians to Liberius, that sect was admitted to entire 
communion with the churches in every city, intermixing themselves indiscriminately with 
those who from the beginning had embraced the form of faith published at Nicaea. But when 
the law of the Emperor Gratian permitted the several sects to reunite without restraint in 
the public services of religion, they again resolved to separate themselves; and having met 
at Antioch in Syria, they decided to avoid the word homoousios again, and in no way to hold 
communion with the supporters of the Nicene Creed. They however derived no advantage 
from this attempt; for the majority of their own party being disgusted at the fickleness with 
which they sometimes maintained one opinion, and then another, withdrew from them, 
and thenceforward became firm adherents of those who professed the doctrine of the ho- 



687 For an account of this deputation and their feigned subscription to the Nicene Creed, through which 
they prevailed upon Liberius to receive them into the communion of the church, see IV. 12. 


Events at Antioch in Connection with Paulinus and Meletius. 

Chapter V . — Events at Antioch in Connection with Paulinus and Meletius. 

About this time a serious contest was excited at Antioch in Syria, on account of Melitius. 


We have already observed that Paulinus, bishop of that city, because of his eminent piety 
was not sent into exile: and that Melitius after being restored by Julian, was again banished 
by Valens, and at length recalled in Gratian’s reign. On his return to Antioch, he found 
Paulinus greatly enfeebled by old age; his partisans therefore immediately used their utmost 
endeavors to get him associated with that bishop in the episcopal office. And when Paulinus 
declared that ‘it was contrary to the canons 690 to take as a coadjutor one who had been or- 
dained by the Arians,’ the people had recourse to violence, and caused him to be consecrated 
in one of the churches without the city. When this was done, a great disturbance arose; but 
afterwards the people were brought to unite on the following stipulations. Having assembled 
such of the clergy as might be considered worthy candidates for the bishopric, they found 
them six in number, of whom Flavian was one. All these they bound by an oath, not to use 
any effort to get themselves ordained, when either of the two bishops should die, but to 
permit the survivor to retain undisturbed possession of the see of the deceased . 691 Thus 
pledges were given, and the people had peace and so no longer quarreled with one another. 
The Luciferians, however, separated themselves from the rest, because Melitius who had 
been ordained by the Arians was admitted to the episcopate. In this state of the Antiochian 
church, Melitius was under the necessity of going to Constantinople. 

688 Cf. III. 9, and IV. 2. 

689 See above, chap. 3. 

690 In its eighth canon the Council of Nicsea, looking forward to the reconciliation of such Novatians or 
Cathari as might desire to return to the Catholic Church, enjoins that ‘when in villages or in cities there are 
found only clergy of their own sect (Cathari), the oldest of these clerics shall remain among the clergy, and in 
their position; but if a Catholic priest or bishop be found among them, it is evident that the bishop of the Cath- 
olic Church should preserve the episcopal dignity whilst any one who has received the title of bishop from the 
so-called Cathari would only have a right to the honors accorded to priests, unless the bishop thinks it right to 
let him enjoy the honor of the title. If he does not desire to do so let him give him the place of rural bishop 
(chorepiscopus) or priest, in order that he may appear to be altogether a part of the clergy, and that there may 
not be two bishops in the same city.’ Cf. Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Vol. I. p. 410; Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 
13. 1 and 2. 

691 Theodoret ( H . E. V. 3) gives a different account of the way in which the dispute between Melitius and 
Paulinus came to an end, giving the glory to Melitius for the eirenic overture above described, and representing 
Paulinus as constrained to accept it against his will by the political head of the community. 

692 Cf. III. 9; Sozom. III. 15, and V. 12. 


Gregory of Nazianzus is transferred to the See of Constantinople. The Emperor. . . 

Chapter VI. — Gregory of Nazianzus is transferred to the See of Constantinople. The Emperor 

Theodosius falling Sick at Thessalonica, after his Victory over the Barbarians, is there 

baptized by Ascholius the Bishop. 

By the common suffrage of many bishops, Gregory was at this time translated from the 
see of Nazianzus to that of Constantinople, and this happened in the manner before de- 
scribed. About the same time the emperors Gratian and Theodosius each obtained a victory 
over the barbarians . 694 And Gratian immediately set out for Gaul, because the Alemanni 
were ravaging those provinces: but Theodosius, after erecting a trophy, hastened towards 
Constantinople, and arrived at Thessalonica. There he was taken dangerously ill, and ex- 
pressed a desire to receive Christian baptism . 695 Now he had been instructed in Christian 
principles by his ancestors, and professed the ‘homoousian’ faith. Becoming increasingly 
anxious to be baptized therefore, as his malady grew worse, he sent for the bishop of Thes- 
salonica, and first asked him what doctrinal views he held? The bishop having replied, ‘that 
the opinion of Arius had not yet invaded the provinces of Illyricum, nor had the novelty to 
which that heretic had given birth begun to prey upon the churches in those countries; but 
they continued to preserve unshaken that faith which from the beginning was delivered by 
the apostles, and had been confirmed in the Nicene Synod,’ the emperor was most gladly 
baptized by the bishop Ascholius; and having recovered from his disease not many days 
after, he came to Constantinople on the twenty- fourth of November, in the fifth consulate 
of Gratian, and the first of his own . 696 

693 So also Gregory Nazianz. Carmen de Vita Sua, 595. ‘The grace of the Spirit sent us, many shepherds and 
members of the flock inviting.’ See, however, on Gregory’s episcopate at Nazianzus, IV. 26 and note. 

694 Cf. Zosimus, IV.; Sozom. VII. 4; Am. Marcellinus, XXXI. 9 and 10. 

695 Cf. Zosimus, IV. 39, on the dangerous illness of Theodosius. On delayed baptism, called ‘clinic,’ see I. 39, 
note 2. Evidendy baptism was not thought essential to one’s title to be called a Christian. Theodosius and Con- 
stantine were both considered Christians and ‘professed the homoousian faith, and yet they both postponed 
their baptism to what they believed to be the latest moments of their lives.’ 

696 380 a.d. 


Gregory, finding Some Dissatisfaction about his Appointment, abdicates the... 

Chapter VII. — Gregory, finding Some Dissatisfaction about his Appointment, abdicates the 
Episcopate of Constantinople. The Emperor orders Demophilus the Arian Bishop either 
to assent to the ‘Homoousion,’ or leave the City. He chooses the Latter. 

Now at that time Gregory of Nazianzus, after his translation to Constantinople, held 
his assemblies within the city in a small oratory, adjoining to which the emperors afterwards 
built a magnificent church, and named it Anastasia. But Gregory, who far excelled in 
eloquence and piety all those of the age in which he lived, understanding that some murmured 
at his preferment because he was a stranger, after expressing his joy at the emperor’s arrival, 
resigned the bishopric of Constantinople. When the emperor found the church in this state, 
he began to consider by what means he could make peace, effect a union, and enlarge the 


churches. Immediately, therefore, he intimated his desire to Demophilus, who presided 
over the Arian party; and enquired whether he was willing to assent to the Nicene Creed, 
and thus reunite the people, and establish peace. Upon Demophilus’ declining to accede to 
this proposal, the emperor said to him, ‘Since you reject peace and harmony, I order you to 
quit the churches.’ When Demophilus heard this, weighing with himself the difficulty of 
contending against superior power, he convoked his followers in the church, and standing 
in the midst of them, thus spoke: ‘Brethren, it is written in the Gospel , 699 “If they persecute 
you in one city, flee ye into another.” Since therefore the emperor needs the churches, take 
notice that we will henceforth hold our assemblies without the city.’ Having said this he 
departed; not however as rightly apprehending the meaning of that expression in the 
Evangelist, for the real import of the sacred oracle is that such as would avoid the course of 

697 It appears from several places in Gregory’s writings (cf. Somn. de Anastasia, Ad Popul. Anast. and Carmen 
de Vita Sua, 1709) that he himself had used the name of Anastasia in speaking of the church, so that Socrates’ 
statement that it was so called afterwards must be taken as inaccurate. It also appears that Gregory gave the 
name Anastasia to the house which he used as a church, and meant to signify by the name (Anastation = Resur- 
rection) the resurrection of the orthodox community of Constantinople. It is possible, of course, that Socrates 
here means that the emperors later adopted the name given by Gregory on the occasion of building a large 
church in place of the original chapel. See also on Gregory’s stay at Constantinople Sozom. VII. 5; Philostorgius, 
IX. 19; Theodoret, V. 8. 

698 Cf. Philostorgius, IX. 10 and 14, whence it appears that Demophilus was the Arian bishop who succeeded 
Eudoxius in Constantinople. 

699 Matt. x. 23. 


Gregory, finding Some Dissatisfaction about his Appointment, abdicates the... 

this world must seek the heavenly Jerusalem. 700 He therefore went outside the city gates, 
and there in future held his assemblies. With him also Lucius went out, who being ejected 
from Alexandria, as we have before related, had made his escape to Constantinople, and 
there abode. Thus the Arians, after having been in possession of the churches for forty years, 
were in consequence of their opposition to the peace proposed by the emperor Theodosius, 
driven out of the city, in Gratian’s fifth consulate, “ and the first of Theodosius Angustus, 
on the 26th of November. The adherents of the ‘homoousian’ faith in this manner regained 
possession of the churches. 

700 A specimen of allegorical interpretation due to the influence of Origen. See Farrar, Hist, of Interpretation, 
p. 183 seq. For similar cases of allegorizing, see Huet, Origeniana passim, and De la Rue, Origenis Opera, App. 

701 IV. 37. 

702 The same consulate as at the end of chap. 6; i.e. 380 a.d. 


A Synod consisting of One Hundred and Fifty Bishops meets at Constantinople. . . . 

Chapter VIII.— A Synod consisting of One Hundred and Fifty Bishops meets at Constantinople. 

The Decrees passed. Ordination ofNectarius. 

The emperor making no delay summoned a Synod of the prelates of his own faith, 

in order that he might establish the Nicene Creed, and appoint a bishop of Constantinople: 
and inasmuch as he was not without hope that he might win the Macedonians over to his 
own views, he invited those who presided over that sect to be present also. There met 
therefore on this occasion of the Homoousian party, Timothy from Alexandria, Cyril from 
Jerusalem, who at that time recognized the doctrine of homoousion , 704 having retracted his 
former opinion; Melitius from Antioch, he having arrived there previously to assist at the 
installation of Gregory; Ascholius also from Thessalonica, and many others, amounting in 
all to one hundred and fifty. Of the Macedonians, the leaders were Eleusius of Cyzicus, and 
Marcian of Lampsacus; these with the rest, most of whom came from the cities of the 
Hellespont, were thirty- six in number. Accordingly they were assembled in the month of 
May, under the consulate of Eucharius and Evagrius, and the emperor used his utmost 
exertions, in conjunction with the bishops who entertained similar sentiments to his own, 
to bring over Eleusius and his adherents to his own side. They were reminded of the depu- 
tation they had sent by Eustathius to Liberius then bishop of Rome; that they had of their 

own accord not long before entered into promiscuous communion with the orthodox; and 
the inconsistency and fickleness of their conduct was represented to them, in now attempting 
to subvert the faith which they once acknowledged, and professed agreement with the 
catholics in. But they paying little heed alike to admonitions and reproofs, chose rather to 
maintain the Arian dogma, than to assent to the ‘homoousian’ doctrine. Having made this 
declaration, they departed from Constantinople; moreover they wrote to their partisans in 
every city, and charged them by no means to harmonize with the creed of the Nicene Synod. 
The bishops of the other party remaining at Constantinople, entered into a consultation 
about the ordination of a bishop; for Gregory, as we have before said, had resigned that 
see, and was preparing to return to Nazianzus. Now there was a person named Nectarius, 

703 Cf. parallel account in Sozom. VII. 7-9; Theodoret, H. E. V. 8. The Synod of Constantinople was the 
second great oecumenical or general council. Its title as an oecumenical council has not been disputed, although 
no Western bishop attended. Baronius, however ( Annal . 381, notes 19, 20), attempts to prove, but unsuccessfully, 
that Pope Damasus summoned the council. For a full account of the council, see Hefele, History of the Councils, 
Vol. II. p. 340-374. 

704 Sozomen adds that Cyril was previously a follower of Macedonius, and had changed his mind at this 
time. Cf. Sozom. VII. 7. 

705 381 a.d. 

706 Cf. IV. 12. 

707 See above, chap. 7. 


A Synod consisting of One Hundred and Fifty Bishops meets at Constantinople. . . . 

of a senatorial family, mild and gentle in his manners, and admirable in his whole course 
of life, although he at that time bore the office of proctor. This man was seized upon by the 
people, and elected to the episcopate, and was ordained accordingly by one hundred and 
fifty bishops then present. The same prelates moreover published a decree , 709 prescribing 
‘that the bishop of Constantinople should have the next prerogative of honor after the 
bishop of Rome, because that city was New Rome.’ They also again confirmed the Nicene 
Creed. Then too patriarchs were constituted, and the provinces distributed, so that no 
bishop might exercise any jurisdiction over other churches out of his own diocese: for 
this had been often indiscriminately done before, in consequence of the persecutions. To 
Nectarius therefore was allotted the great city and Thrace. Helladius, the successor of Basil 
in the bishopric of Caesarea in Cappadocia, obtained the patriarchate of the diocese of 
Pontus in conjunction with Gregory Basil’s brother, bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, and 

Otreius bishop of Melitina in Armenia. To Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch 
in Pisidia, was the Asiatic diocese assigned. The superintendence of the churches throughout 
Egypt was committed to Timothy of Alexandria. On Pelagius of Laodicea, and Diodorus of 
Tarsus, devolved the administration of the churches of the East; without infringement 
however on the prerogatives of honor reserved to the Antiochian church, and conferred on 
Melitius then present. They further decreed that as necessity required it, the ecclesiastical 

708 See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. 2. 8 for other examples illustrating this method of electing bishops. 

709 Canon 3 of the Synod; see Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II. p. 357. The canon is given by Socrates 
entire and in the original words. Valesius holds that the primacy conferred by this canon on the Constantino- 
politan see was one of honor merely, and involved no prerogatives of patriarchal or metropolitan jurisdiction. 
For a full discussion of its significance, see Hefele, as above. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 confirmed the 
above action in the following words: ‘We following in all things the decision of the Holy Fathers, and acknow- 
ledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty bishops. . .do also determine and decree the same things respecting 
the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers properly gave the primacy 
to the throne of the elder Rome.’ Canon 28. 

710 Canon 2. The words ‘patriarch,’ however, and ‘patriarchate’ are not used in the canon. According to 
Sophocles ( Greek Lexicon ) the modern sense of these words was introduced at the close of the fourth century. 
Valesius holds that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council had given sanction to the principle of patriarchal au- 
thority; but Beveridge is of opinion that patriarchs were first constituted by the second general council. Hefele 
takes substantially the same position as Valesius. See discussion of the subject in Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, 
Vol. I. p. 389 seq. 

711 Cf. IV. 27. On Gregory of Nyssa, one of the most prominent of the ancient Fathers, see Smith & Wace, 
Diet, of Christ. Biog.; Schaff, Hist, of the Christ. Church, Vol. III. p. 903 et seq., and sources mentioned in the 


A Synod consisting of One Hundred and Fifty Bishops meets at Constantinople. . . . 

affairs of each province should be managed by a Synod of the province. These arrangements 
were confirmed by the emperor’s approbation. Such was the result of this Synod. 


The Body of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, is honorably transferred from... 

Chapter IX. — The Body of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, is honorably transferred from his 
Place of Exile. Death ofMeletius. 

The emperor at that time caused to be removed from the city of Ancyra, the body of 
the bishop Paul, whom Philip the prefect of the Praetorium " had banished at the instigation 
of Macedonius, and ordered to be strangled at Cucusus a town of Armenia, as I have already 


mentioned. ‘ He therefore received the remains with great reverence and honor, and de- 
posited in the church which now takes its name from him; which the Macedonian party 
were formerly in possession of while they remained separate from the Arians, but were ex- 
pelled at that time by the emperor, because they refused to adopt his sentiments. About this 
period Melitius, bishop of Antioch, fell sick and died: in whose praise Gregory, the brother 
of Basil, pronounced a funeral oration. The body of the deceased bishop was by his friends 
conveyed to Antioch; where those who had identified themselves with his interests again 
refused subjection to Paulinus, but caused Flavian to be substituted in the place of Melitius, 
and the people began to quarrel anew. Thus again the Antiochian church was divided into 
rival factions, not grounded on any difference of faith, but simply on a preference of bishops. 

712 Constantine made an advance on his predecessors by dividing the management of the empire among 
four prefects of the praetorium, which they had committed to two officers of that name. These four were appor- 
tioned as follows: one to the East, a second to Illyricum, a third to Italy, and a fourth to Gaul. Each of these 
prefects had a number of dioceses under him, and each diocese was a combination of several provinces into one 
territory. In conformity with this model of civil government the church abandoned gradually and naturally its 
metropolitan administration of the provinces and adopted the diocesan. The exact time of the change is, of 
course, uncertain, it having come about gradually. It is safe, however, to put it between the Nicene and Con- 
stantinopolitan councils. The Fathers in the latter of those councils seem to find it in practical operation and 
confirm it (Cf. Canon 2 of the councils), decreeing explicitly that it should be unlawful for clerics to perform 
any office or transact any business in their official character outside of the bounds of the diocese wherein they 
were placed, just as it was unlawful for the civil officer to intermeddle in any affair outside the limits of his civil 

713 II. 26. 


The Emperor orders a Convention composed of All the Various Sects. Arcadius... 

Chapter X. — The Emperor orders a Convention composed of All the Various Sects. Arcadius 

is proclaimed Augustus. The Novatians permitted to hold their Assemblies in the City of 

Constantinople: Other Heretics driven out. 

Great disturbances occurred in other cities also, as the Arians were ejected from the 
churches. But I cannot sufficiently admire the emperor’s prudence in this contingency. For 
he was unwilling to fill the cities with disturbance, as far as this was dependent on him, and 
so after a very short time 714 he called together a general conference of the sects, thinking 
that by a discussion among their bishops, their mutual differences might be adjusted, and 
unanimity established. And this purpose of the emperor’s I am persuaded was the reason 
that his affairs were so prosperous at that time. In fact by a special dispensation of Divine 
Providence the barbarous nations were reduced to subjection under him: and among others, 
Athanaric king of the Goths made a voluntary surrender of himself to him, with all his 
people, and died soon after at Constantinople. At this juncture the emperor proclaimed his 
son Arcadius Augustus, on the sixteenth of January, in the second consulate of 
Merobaudes and Saturnilus. Not long afterwards in the month of June, under the same 
consulate, the bishops of every sect arrived from all places: the emperor, therefore, sent for 
Nectarius the bishop, and consulted with him on the best means of freeing the Christian 
religion from dissensions, and reducing the church to a state of unity. ‘The subjects of con- 
troversy,’ said he, ‘ought to be fairly discussed, that by the detection and removal of the 
sources of discord, a universal agreement may be effected.’ Hearing this proposition Nec- 
tarius fell into uneasiness, and communicated it to Agelius bishop of the Novatians, inasmuch 
as he entertained the same sentiments as himself in matters of faith. This man, though em- 
inently pious, was by no means competent to maintain a dispute on doctrinal points; he 
therefore proposed to refer the subject to Sisinnius his reader, as a fit person to manage 
a conference. Sisinnius, who was not only learned, but possessed of great experience, and 
was well informed both in the expositions of the sacred Scriptures and the principles of 
philosophy, being convinced that disputations, far from healing divisions usually create 
heresies of a more inveterate character, gave the following advice to Nectarius, knowing 
well that the ancients have nowhere attributed a beginning of existence to the Son of God, 
conceiving him to be co-eternal with the Father, he advised that they should avoid dialectic 
warfare and bring forward as evidences of the truth the testimonies of the ancients. ‘Let the 

714 Socrates according to his custom omits all mention of events in the Western Church. Some of them are 
quite important; e.g. the council of Aquileia called by the Emperor Gratian. See Hefele, Hist, of Church Councils, 
Vol. II. p. 375 seq. 

715 This was in 382 a.d. as appears from the Fasti of Idatius. Cf. also Zosimus, IV. 34, and Jerome, Chronicon. 

716 383 a.d. 

717 For a further account of Sisinnius, see VI. 22. 


The Emperor orders a Convention composed of All the Various Sects. Arcadius... 

emperor,’ said he, ‘demand of the heads of each sect, whether they would pay any deference 
to the ancients who flourished before schism distracted the church; or whether they would 
repudiate them, as alienated from the Christian faith? If they reject their authority, then let 
them also anathematize them: and should they presume to take such a step, they would 
themselves be instantly thrust out by the people, and so the truth will be manifestly victorious. 
But if, on the other hand, they are not willing to set aside the fathers, it will then be our 
business to produce their books, by which our views will be fully attested.’ Nectarius having 
heard these words of Sisinnius, hastened to the palace, and acquainted the emperor with 
the plan which had been suggested to him; who at once perceiving its wisdom and propriety, 
carried it into execution with consummate prudence. For without discovering his object, 
he simply asked the chiefs of the heretics whether they had any respect for and would accept 
the teachings of those teachers who lived previous to the dissension in the church? As they 
did not repudiate them, but replied that they highly revered them as their masters; the em- 
peror enquired of them again whether they would defer to them as accredited witnesses of 
Christian doctrine? At this question, the leaders of the several parties, with their logical 
champions, — for many had come prepared for sophistical debate, — found themselves ex- 
tremely embarrassed. For a division was caused among them as some acquiesced in the 
reasonableness of the emperor’s proposition while others shrunk from it, conscious that it 
was by no means favorable to their interests: so that all being variously affected towards the 
writings of the ancients, they could no longer agree among themselves, dissenting not only 
from other sects, but those of the same sect differing from one another. Accordant malice 
therefore, like the tongue of the giants of old, was confounded, and their tower of mischief 
overturned. The emperor perceiving by their confusion that their sole confidence was 
in subtle arguments, and that they feared to appeal to the expositions of the fathers, had 
recourse to another method: he commanded every sect to set forth in writing their own 
peculiar tenets. Accordingly those who were accounted the most skillful among them, drew 
up a statement of their respective creeds, couched in terms the most circumspect they could 
devise; a day was appointed, and the bishops selected for this purpose presented themselves 
at the palace. Nectarius and Agelius appeared as the defenders of the ‘homoousian’ faith; 
Demophilus supported the Arian dogma; Eunomius himself undertook the cause of the 
Eunomians; and Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, represented the opinions of those who were 
denominated Macedonians. The emperor gave them all a courteous reception; and receiving 
from each their written avowal of faith, he shut himself up alone, and prayed very earnestly 
that God would assist him in his endeavors to ascertain the truth. Then perusing with great 
care the statement which each had submitted to him, he condemned all the rest, inasmuch 
as they introduced a separation of the Trinity, and approved of that only which contained 

718 Referring no doubt to the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of its builders, Gen. xi. 8. 


The Emperor orders a Convention composed of All the Various Sects. Arcadius... 

the doctrine of the homoousion. This decision caused the Novatians to flourish again, and 
hold their meetings within the city: for the emperor delighted with the agreement of their 
profession with that which he embraced, promulgated a law securing to them the peaceful 
possession of their own church buildings, and assigned to their churches equal privileges 
with those to which he gave his more especial sanction. But the bishops of the other sects, 
on account of their disagreement among themselves, were despised and censured even by 
their own followers: so that overwhelmed with perplexity and vexation they departed, ad- 
dressing consolatory letters to their adherents, whom they exhorted not to be troubled be- 
cause many had deserted them and gone over to the homoousian party; for they said, ‘Many 
are called, but few chosen — an expression which they never used when on account of 
force and terror the majority of the people was on their side. Nevertheless the orthodox 
believers were not wholly exempt from inquietude; for the affairs of the Antiochian church 
caused divisions among those who were present at the Synod. The bishops of Egypt, Arabia 
and Cyprus, combined against Flavian, and insisted on his expulsion from Antioch: but 
those of Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria, contended with equal zeal in his favor. What result 


issued from this contest I shall describe in its proper place. 

719 Matt. xx. 16. 

720 Below, chap. 15. 


The Emperor Gratian is slain by the Treachery of the Usurper Maximus. From... 

Chapter XI. — The Emperor Gratian is slain by the Treachery of the Usurper Maximus. From 

Fear of him Justina ceases persecuting Ambrose. 

Nearly at the same time with the holding of these Synods at Constantinople, the following 
events occurred in the Western parts. Maximus, from the island of Britain, rebelled against 
the Roman empire, and attacked Gratian, who was then wearied and exhausted in a war 
with the Alemanni. In Italy, Valentinian being still a minor, Probus, a man of consular 
dignity, had the chief administration of affairs, and was at that time prefect of the Praetorium. 
Justina, the mother of the young prince, who entertained Arian sentiments, as long as her 
husband lived had been unable to molest the Homoousians; but going to Milan while her 
son was still young, she manifested great hostility to Ambrose the bishop, and commanded 
that he should be banished. While the people from their excessive attachment to Ambrose, 

were offering resistance to those who were charged with taking him into exile, intelligence 
was brought that Gratian had been assassinated by the treachery of the usurper Maximus. 
In fact Andragathius, a general under Maximus, having concealed himself in a litter resem- 
bling a couch, which was carried by mules, ordered his guards to spread a report before him 
that the litter contained the Emperor Gratian’s wife. They met the emperor near the city of 
Lyons in France just as he had crossed the river: who believing it to be his wife, and not 
suspecting any treachery, fell into the hands of his enemy as a blind man into the ditch; for 
Andragathius, suddenly springing forth from the litter, slew him. Gratian thus perished 
in the consulate of Merogaudes and Saturninus, in the twenty- fourth year of his age, and 

the fifteenth of his reign. When this happened the Empress Justina’s indignation against 
Ambrose was repressed. Afterwards Valentinian most unwillingly, but constrained by the 
necessity of the time, admitted Maximus as his colleague in the empire. Probus alarmed at 
the power of Maximus, resolved to retreat into the regions of the East: leaving Italy therefore, 
he proceeded to Illyricum, and fixed his residence at Thessalonica a city of Macedonia. 

721 Cf. Zosimus, IV. 35 seq. 

722 Cf. IV. 30. 

723 The account of Gratian’s death given by Zosimus, though not inconsistent with that of Socrates, does not 
contain the details given by Socrates. Andragathius is simply said to have pursued Gratian, and overtaking him 
near the bridge to have slain him. Cf. Zosimus, IV. 35 end. 

724 383 a.d. 


While the Emperor Theodosius is engaged in Military Preparations against... 

Chapter XII.— While the Emperor Theodosius is engaged in Military Preparations against 

Maximus, his Son Honorius is bom. He then proceeds to Milan in Order to encounter the 


But the Emperor Theodosius was filled with great solicitude, and levied a powerful army 
against the usurper, fearing lest he should meditate the assassination of the young 
Valentinian also. While engaged in this preparation, an embassy arrived from the Persians, 
requesting peace from the emperor. Then also the empress Flaccilla bore him a son named 
Honorius, on the 9th of September, in the consulate of Richomelius and Clearchus. Under 

the same consulate, and a little previously, Agelius bishop of the Novatians died. " In the 
year following, wherein Arcadius Augustus bore his first consulate in conjunction with 
Baudon, Timothy bishop of Alexandria died, and was succeeded in the episcopate by 
Theophilus. About a year after this, Demophilus the Arian prelate having departed this life, 
the Arians sent for Marinus a leader of their own heresy out of Thrace, to whom they entrus- 
ted the bishopric: but Marinus did not long occupy that position, for under him that sect 
was divided into two parties, as we shall hereafter explain; for they invited Dorotheus 
to come to them from Antioch in Syria, and constituted him their bishop. Meanwhile the 
emperor Theodosius proceeded to the war against Maximus, leaving his son Arcadius with 
imperial authority at Constantinople. Accordingly arriving at Thessalonica he found 
Valentinian and those about him in great anxiety, because through compulsion they had 
acknowledged the usurper as emperor. Theodosius, however, gave no expression to his 
sentiments in public; he neither rej ected nor admitted the embassy of Maximus: but unable 

to endure tyrannical domination over the Roman empire, under the assumption of an im- 
perial name, he hastily mustered his forces and advanced to Milan, whither the usurper 
had already gone. 

725 384 a.d. Honorius afterwards shared the empire with Arcadius, reigning in the West from 398 to 423 a.d. 
But although the whole of this period comes within the time of Socrates’ history, he does not mention Honorius 
but once again before his death. 

726 Having been bishop of the Novatians for forty years; see chap. 21. 

727 385 a.d. 

728 Chap. 23. 

729 Being in the ninety-eighth year of his age as appears from VII. 6. 

730 Zosimus, however, says (IV. 37) that the embassy of Maximus was received by Theodosius. 

731 Rather Aquileja as appears from Zosimus and other historians. 


The Arians excite a Tumult at Constantinople. 

Chapter XIII .— The Arians excite a Tumult at Constantinople. 

At the time when the emperor was thus occupied on his military expedition, the Arians 
excited a great tumult at Constantinople by such devices as these. Men are fond of fabricating 
statements respecting matters about which they are in ignorance; and if at any time they 
are given occasion they swell to a prodigious extent rumors concerning what they wish, 
being ever fond of change. This was strongly exemplified at Constantinople on the present 
occasion: for each invented news concerning the war which was carrying on at a distance, 
according to his own caprice, always presuming upon the most disastrous results; and before 
the contest had yet commenced, they spoke of transactions in reference to it, of which they 
knew nothing, with as much assurance as if they had been spectators on the very scene of 
action. Thus it was confidently affirmed that ‘the usurper had defeated the emperor’s army,’ 
even the number of men slain on both sides being specified; and that ‘the emperor himself 
had nearly fallen into the usurper’s hands.’ Then the Arians, who had been excessively exas- 
perated by those being put in possession of the churches within the city who had previously 
been the objects of their persecution, began to augment these rumors by additions of their 
own. But since the currency of such stories with increasing exaggeration, in time made even 
the farmers themselves believe them — for those who had circulated them from hearsay, af- 
firmed to the authors of these falsehoods, that the accounts they had received from them 
had been fully corroborated elsewhere; then indeed the Arians were emboldened to commit 
acts of violence, and among other outrages, to set fire to the house of Nectarius the bishop. 
This was done in the second consulate of Theodosius Augustus, which he bore with 

732 388 a.d. 


Overthrow and Death of the Usurper Maximus. 

Chapter XIV . — Overthrow and Death of the Usurper Maximus. 

As the emperor marched against the usurper the intelligence of the formidable prepar- 
ations made by him so alarmed the troops under Maximus, that instead of fighting for him, 
they delivered him bound to the emperor, who caused him to be put to death, on the twenty- 
seventh of August, under the same consulate. Andragathius, who with his own hand had 

slain Gratian, understanding the fate of Maximus, precipitated himself into the adjacent 
river, and was drowned. Then the victorious emperors made their public entry into Rome, 
accompanied by Honorius the son of Theodosius, still a mere boy, whom his father had 
sent for from Constantinople immediately after Maximus had been vanquished. They con- 
tinued therefore at Rome celebrating their triumphal festivals: during which time the Em- 
peror Theodosius exhibited a remarkable instance of clemency toward Symmachus, a man 
who had borne the consular office, and was at the head of the senate at Rome. For this 
Symmachus was distinguished for his eloquence, and many of his orations are still extant 
composed in the Latin tongue: but inasmuch as he had written a panegyric on Maximus, 
and pronounced it before him publicly, he was afterwards impeached for high treason; 
wherefore to escape capital punishment he took sanctuary in a church. The emperor’s 
veneration for religion led him not only to honor the bishops of his own communion, but 
to treat with consideration those of the Novatians also, who embraced the ‘homoousian’ 
creed: to gratify therefore Leontius the bishop of the Novatian church at Rome, who inter- 
ceded in behalf of Symmachus, he graciously pardoned him for that crime. Symmachus, 
after he had obtained his pardon, wrote an apologetic address to the Emperor Theodosius. 
Thus the war, which at its commencement threatened so seriously, was brought to a speedy 

733 The same account is given in substance by Zosimus, IV. 46, who also confirms the statements of Socrates 
concerning the end of Andragathius. Valesius, however, relying on Idatius’ Fasti, asserts that Maximus was put 
to death on the 28th of July, not on the 27th of August. 

734 The churches were considered recognized places of asylum. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 10 and 11. 


Of Flavian Bishop of Antioch. 

Chapter XV . — Of Flavian Bishop of Antioch. 

About the same period, the following events took place at Antioch in Syria. After the 
death of Paulinus, the people who had been under his superintendence refused to submit 


to the authority of Flavian, but caused Evagrius to be ordained bishop of their own party. 

As he did not survive his ordination long, no other was constituted in his place, Flavian 
having brought this about: nevertheless those who disliked Flavian on account of his having 


violated his oath, held their assemblies apart. Meanwhile Flavian left no stone unturned,’ 
as the phrase is, to bring these also under his control; and this he soon after effected, when 
he appeased the anger of Theophilus, then bishop of Alexandria, by whose mediation he 
conciliated, Damasus bishop of Rome also. For both these had been greatly displeased with 
Flavian, as well for the perjury of which he had been guilty, as for the schism he had occa- 
sioned among the previously united people. Theophilus therefore being pacified, sent Isidore 
a presbyter to Rome, and thus reconciled Damasus, who was still offended; representing to 
him the propriety of overlooking Flavian’s past misconduct, for the sake of producing concord 
among the people. Communion being in this way restored to Flavian, the people of Antioch 
were in the course of a little while induced to acquiesce in the union secured. Such was the 
conclusion of this affair at Antioch. But the Arians of that city being ejected from the 
churches, were accustomed to hold their meetings in the suburbs. Meanwhile Cyril bishop 


of Jerusalem having died about this time, was succeeded by John. 

735 Theodoret ( H . E. V. 23) says that there was a double violation of order in the ordination of Evagrius; first 
in that he was ordained by his predecessor, and secondly in that he was ordained by one bishop, whereas the 
canon required that not less than three should take part in an episcopal ordination. 

736 Cf. VI. 9; also chaps. 5 and 1 1 of this book. 

737 In 386 a.d. 


Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent Conflict... 

Chapter XVI. — Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent 

Conflict between the Pagans and Christians. 

At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at 
this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it 
should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, 
Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And 


to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view 
the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rights 
of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant 
superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. The 
pagans of Alexandria, and especially the professors of philosophy, were unable to repress 
their rage at this exposure, and exceeded in revengeful ferocity their outrages on a former 
occasion: for with one accord, at a preconcerted signal, they rushed impetuously upon the 
Christians, and murdered every one they could lay hands on. The Christians also made an 
attempt to resist the assailants, and so the mischief was the more augmented. This desperate 
affray was prolonged until satiety of bloodshed put an end to it. Then it was discovered that 
very few of the heathens had been killed, but a great number of Christians; while the number 
of wounded on each side was almost innumerable. Fear then possessed the pagans on account 
of what was done, as they considered the emperor’s displeasure. For having done what 
seemed good in their own eyes, and by their bloodshed having quenched their courage, 
some fled in one direction, some in another, and many quitting Alexandria, dispersed 
themselves in various cities. Among these were the two grammarians Helladius and Am- 
monius, whose pupil I was in my youth at Constantinople. Helladius was said to be the 
priest of Jupiter, and Ammonius of Simius . 740 Thus this disturbance having been terminated, 
the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted 
Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, 
and the images of their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of 
the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for 
the relief of the poor. All the images were accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue 
of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place; ‘Lest,’ 
said he, ‘at a future time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.’ 
This action gave great umbrage to Ammonius the grammarian in particular, who to my 
knowledge was accustomed to say that ‘the religion of the Gentiles was grossly abused in 
that that single statue was not also molten, but preserved, in order to render that religion 

738 See III. 2. 

739 Cf Introd. p. 8. 

740 TtiSriKOU, ‘the ape-god.’ 


Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent Conflict... 

ridiculous.’ Helladius however boasted in the presence of some that he had slain in that 
desperate onset nine men with his own hand. Such were the doings at Alexandria at that 


Of the Hieroglyphics found in the Temple ofSerapis. 

Chapter XVII . — Of the Hieroglyphics found in the Temple ofSerapis. 

When the Temple of Serapis was torn down and laid bare, there were found in it, en- 
graven on stones, certain characters which they call hieroglyphics, having the forms of 
crosses . 741 Both the Christians and pagans on seeing them, appropriated and applied them 
to their respective religions: for the Christians who affirm that the cross is the sign of Christ’s 
saving passion, claimed this character as peculiarly theirs; but the pagans alleged that it 
might appertain to Christ and Serapis in common; ‘for,’ said they, ‘it symbolizes one thing 
to Christians and another to heathens.’ Whilst this point was controverted amongst them, 
some of the heathen converts to Christianity, who were conversant with these hieroglyphic 
characters, interpreted the form of a cross and said that it signifies ‘Life to come.’ This the 
Christians exultingly laid hold of, as decidedly favorable to their religion. But after other 
hieroglyphics had been deciphered containing a prediction that ‘When the cross should 
appear,’ — for this was ‘life to come,’ — ‘the Temple of Serapis would be destroyed,’ a very 
great number of the pagans embraced Christianity, and confessing their sins, were baptized. 
Such are the reports I have heard respecting the discovery of this symbol in form of a cross. 
But I cannot imagine that the Egyptian priests foreknew the things concerning Christ, when 
they engraved the figure of a cross. For if ‘the advent’ of our Saviour into the world ‘was a 
mystery hid from ages and from generations, as the apostle declares; and if the devil 
himself, the prince of wickedness, knew nothing of it, his ministers, the Egyptian priests, 
are likely to have been still more ignorant of the matter; but Providence doubtless purposed 
that in the enquiry concerning this character, there should something take place analogous 
to what happened heretofore at the preaching of Paul. For he, made wise by the Divine 

r 7A'X 

Spirit, employed a similar method in relation to the Athenians, and brought over many 
of them to the faith, when on reading the inscription on one of their altars, he accommodated 
and applied it to his own discourse. Unless indeed any one should say, that the Word of 

741 There are several cruciform signs among the Egyptian hieroglyphics, as e.g. the simple determinative 5, 
meaning ‘to cross,’ ‘to multiply,’ ‘to mix’ (see Birch, Egyptian Texts , p. 99); or the syllabic *, phonetically equivalent 
to am (see Birch, ibid. p. 101); or the cross with a ring at the head *; or the still more elaborate * (see Brugsh, 
Thesaurus Inscript. Egyptiacarum, p. 20; also Champollion, Grammaire Egyptienne, XII. p. 365, 440). To which 
of these Socrates refers it is impossible to say from their mere form. They occur commonly and we must infer 
that the discovery described in this passage is not the first bringing into light of the sign mentioned, but its oc- 
currence in the Serapeum. The third of the above signs is usually interpreted as ‘life’ either ‘happy’ or ‘immortal,’ 
which agrees with the meaning given to the cruciform sign here mentioned. 

742 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8; Eph. iii. 5, 6; Col. i. 26. 

743 Acts xvii. 23. 


Of the Hieroglyphics found in the Temple ofSerapis. 

God wrought in the Egyptian priests, as it did on Balaam 744 and Caiaphas ; 745 for these men 
uttered prophecies of good things in spite of themselves. This will suffice on the subject. 

744 Num. xxiv. 

745 John xi. 51. 


Reformation of Abuses at Rome by the Emperor Theodosius. 

Chapter XVIII .—Reformation of Abuses at Rome by the Emperor Theodosius. 

The emperor Theodosius during his short stay in Italy, conferred the greatest benefit 
on the city of Rome, by grants on the one hand, and abrogations on the other. His largesses 
were indeed very munificent; and he removed two most infamous abuses which existed in 
the city. One of them was the following: there were buildings of immense magnitude, erected 
in ancient Rome in former times, in which bread was made for distribution among the 
people . 746 Those who had the charge of these edifices, who Mancipes 747 were called in the 
Latin language, in process of time converted them into receptacles for thieves. Now as the 
bake-houses in these structures were placed underneath, they build taverns at the side of 
each, where they kept prostitutes; by which means they entrapped many of those who went 
thither either for the sake of refreshment, or to gratify their lusts, for by a certain mechanical 
contrivance they precipitated them from the tavern into the bake-house below. This was 
practiced chiefly upon strangers; and such as were in this way kidnapped were compelled 
to work in the bake-houses, where many of them were immured until old age, not being 
allowed to go out, and giving the impression to their friends that they were dead. It happened 
that one of the soldiers of the emperor Theodosius fell into this snare; who being shut up 
in the bake-house, and hindered from going out, drew a dagger which he wore and killed 
those who stood in his way: the rest being terrified, suffered him to escape. When the em- 
peror was made acquainted with the circumstance he punished the Mancipes, and ordered 
these haunts of lawless and abandoned characters to be pulled down. This was one of the 
disgraceful nuisances of which the emperor purged the imperial city: the other was of this 
nature. When a woman was detected in adultery, they punished the delinquent not in the 
way of correction but rather of aggravation of her crime. For shutting her up in a narrow 
brothel, they obliged her to prostitute herself in a most disgusting manner; causing little 
bells to be rung at the time of the unclean deed that those who passed might not be ignorant 
of what was doing within. This was doubtless intended to brand the crime with greater ig- 
nominy in public opinion. As soon as the emperor was apprised of this indecent usage, he 

746 In the earlier periods of Roman history the government undertook to regulate the price of corn, so as to 
protect the poorer classes; in time of scarcity the government was to purchase the grain and sell it at a moderate 
price. This provision was gradually changed into a dispensation of public charity, at first by the sale of the grain 
below cost, and afterwards by the gratuitous distribution of the same. Some time before the reign of Aurelian, 
270-275 a.d., the distribution of grain seems to have given place to the distribution of bread. Such distribution 
was made after the reign of Constantine at Constantinople as well as at Rome. See Smith, Diet, of the Greek and 
Rom. Antiq., art. Leges Frumentarice. 

747 Originally this name was applied to all farmers-general of the public revenues. See Smith, Diet, of Greek 
and Rom. Antiq., art. Manceps. 


Reformation of Abuses at Rome by the Emperor Theodosius. 


would by no means tolerate it; but having ordered the Sistra — for so these places of 
penal prostitution were denominated — to be pulled down, he appointed other laws for the 
punishment of adulteresses. 749 Thus did the emperor Theodosius free the city from two of 
its most discreditable abuses: and when he had arranged all other affairs to his satisfaction, 
he left the emperor Valentinian at Rome, and returned himself with his son Honorius to 
Constantinople, and entered that city of the 10th of November, in the consulate of Tatian 


and Symmachus. 

748 Lit. = ‘bells.’ Cf. Smith, Diet, of Greek and Rom. Antiq., art. Sistrum. 

749 From a law of Constantine’s {Cod. 9. 30) whose genuineness is, however, disputed, the punishment of 
adultery was death. The same punishment appears to have been inflicted in specific cases mentioned by Am. 
Marcellinus. Rerum Gestarum, XXVII. 1. 28. Whence it appears that Socrates must have been misinformed 
concerning the facts mentioned here. 

750 391 a.d. 


Of the Office of Penitentiary Presbyters and its Abolition. 

Chapter XIX . — Of the Office of Penitentiary Presbyters and its Abolition. 

At this time it was deemed requisite to abolish the office of those presbyters in the 

nr -i 

churches who had charge of the penitences: this was done on the following account. 

When the Novatians separated themselves from the Church because they would not com- 
municate with those who had lapsed during the persecution under Decius, the bishops added 


to the ecclesiastical canon a presbyter of penitence in order that those who had sinned 


after baptism might confess their sins in the presence of the presbyter thus appointed. 
And this mode of discipline is still maintained among other heretical institutions by all the 
rest of the sects; the Homoousians only, together with the Novatians who hold the same 
doctrinal views, have abandoned it. The latter indeed would never admit of its establish- 
ment : 754 and the Homoousians who are now in possession of the churches, after retaining 
this function for a considerable period, abrogated it in the time of Nectarius, in consequence 
of an event which occured in the Constantinopolitan church, which is as follows: A woman 
of noble family coming to the penitentiary, made a general confession of those sins she had 
committed since her baptism: and the presbyter enjoined fasting and prayer continually, 
that together with the acknowledgment of error, she might have to show works also meet 
for repentance. Some time after this, the same lady again presented herself, and confessed 
that she had been guilty of another crime, a deacon of the church having slept with her. 
When this was proved the deacon was ejected from the church: but the people were very 

indignant, being not only offended at what had taken place, but also because the deed had 
brought scandal and degradation upon the Church. When in consequence of this, ecclesi- 
astics were subjected to taunting and reproach, Eudaemon a presbyter of the church, by 
birth an Alexandrian, persuaded Nectarius the bishop to abolish the office of penitentiary 
presbyter, and to leave every one to his own conscience with regard to the participation of 

nr z' 

the sacred mysteries: for thus only, in his judgment, could the Church be preserved from 

obloquy. Having heard this explanation of the matter from Eudaemon I have ventured to 

751 On account of which he was called the Penitentiary. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XVIII. 3. 

752 ‘The sacerdotal catalogue or order, clerical order, the clergy in general.’ See Sophocles, Greek Lex. of the 
Rom. andByzant. Periods. 

753 On the discipline of the ancient church, see Bennett, Christ. Archcel. p. 380 seq. 

754 See Euseb. H. E. VI. 43. 

755 The regulation of the earliest church was expressed as follows: ‘If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon be 
found guilty of fornication. . .let him be deposed.’ Apostol. Can. 25. 

756 Although the plural is used here, the reference is, no doubt, to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper only. 
The mysteries recognized by Theodorus Studites, Epist. II. 165, are six; i.e. baptism, eucharist, unction, orders, 
monastic tonsure, and the mystery of death or funeral ceremonies. The Greek Church of modern times enumerates 
seven: baptism, unction, eucharist, orders, penitence, marriage, and extreme unction. 


Of the Office of Penitentiary Presbyters and its Abolition. 

put in the present treatise: for as I have often remarked, I have spared no pains to procure 
an authentic account of affairs from those who were best acquainted with them, and to 
scrutinize every report, lest I should advance what might be untrue. My observation to Eu- 
daemon, when he first related the circumstance, was this: ‘Whether, O presbyter, your 
counsel has been profitable for the Church or otherwise, God knows; but I see that it takes 
away the means of rebuking one another’s faults, and prevents our acting upon that precept 
of the apostle, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather re- 
prove them.’” Concerning this affair let this suffice. 

757 Cf.1. 1; II. 1. 

758 Eph. v. 11. Valesius rightly infers from this answer of Socrates to Eudaemon that the former was not a 
Novatian. For he disapproves of the abolition of the penitentiary bishop’s office, whereas as a Novatian he would 
have been against its institution before it was established, and in favor of its abolition afterwards. The Novatians 
never admitted either of penitence or of the penitentiary bishop. 


Divisions among the Arians and Other Heretics. 

Chapter XX. — Divisions among the Arians and Other Heretics. 

I conceive it right moreover not to leave unnoticed the proceedings of the other religious 
bodies, viz. the Arians, Novatians, and those who received their denominations from 
Macedonius and Eunomius. For the Church once being divided, rested not in that schism, 
but the separatists taking occasion from the slightest and most frivolous pretences, disagreed 
among themselves. The manner and time, as well as the causes for which they raised mutual 
dissensions, we will state as we proceed. But let it be observed here, that the emperor 
Theodosius persecuted none of them except Eunomius; but inasmuch as the latter, by 
holding meetings in private houses at Constantinople, where he read the works he had 
composed, corrupted many with his doctrines, he ordered him to be sent into exile. Of the 
other heretics he interfered with no one; nor did he constrain them to hold communion 
with himself; but he allowed them all to assemble in their own conventicles, and to entertain 
their own opinions on points of Christian faith. Permission to build themselves churches 
without the cities was granted to the rest: but inasmuch as the Novatians held sentiments 
precisely identical with his own as to faith, he ordered that they should be suffered to con- 
tinue unmolested in their churches within the cities, as I have before noticed. Concerning 
these I think it opportune, however, to give in this place some farther account, and shall 
therefore retrace a few circumstances in their history. 

759 See chap. 23 of this book. 

760 See chap. 10, above. 


Peculiar Schism among the Novations. 

1 1 

Chapter XXL — Peculiar Schism among the Novatians. 

Of the Novatian church at Constantinople Agelius was the bishop for the space of forty 


years, viz. from the reign of Constantine until the sixth year of that of the emperor 
Theodosius, as I have stated somewhere previously. ' He perceiving his end approaching, 
ordained Sisinnius to succeed him in the bishopric . 764 This person was a presbyter of the 
church over which Agelius presided, remarkably eloquent, and had been instructed in 
philosophy by Maximus, at the same time as the emperor Julian. Now as the Novatian laity 
were dissatisfied with this election, and wished rather that he had ordained Marcian, a man 
of eminent piety, on account of whose influence their sect had been left unmolested during 
the reign of Valens, Agelius therefore to allay his people’s discontent, laid his hands on 
Marcian also. Having recovered a little from his illness, he went to the church and thus of 
his own accord addressed the congregation: ‘After my decease let Marcian be your bishop; 
and after Marcian, Sisinnius.’ He survived these words but a short time; Marcian accordingly 
having been constituted bishop of the Novatians, a division arose in their church also, from 
this cause. Marcian had promoted to the rank of presbyter a converted Jew named Sabbatius, 
who nevertheless continued to retain many of his Jewish prejudices; and moreover he was 
very ambitious of being made a bishop. Having therefore confidentially attached to his in- 
terest two presbyters, Theoctistus and Macarius, who were cognizant of his designs, he re- 
solved to defend that innovation made by the Novatians in the time of Valens, at Pazum a 


village of Phrygia, concerning the festival of Easter, to which I have already adverted. 
And in the first place, under pretext of more ascetic austerity, he privately withdrew from 
the church, saying that ‘he was grieved on account of certain persons whom he suspected 
of being unworthy of participation in the sacrament.’ It was however soon discovered that 
his object was to hold assemblies apart. When Marcian understood this, he bitterly censured 
his own error, in ordaining to the presbyterate persons so intent on vain-glory; and frequently 
said, ‘That it had been better for him to have laid his hands on thorns, than to have imposed 
them on Sabbatius.’ To check his proceedings, he procured a Synod of Novatian bishops to 

761 The main reason adduced for considering Socrates a Novatian is his peculiarly detailed account of the 
Novatian heresy, and the nearness in which he puts it to the orthodox faith. See Introd. p. ix and chap. 19 of 
this book, note 8; also II. 38 and VI. 21. 

762 See above, chap. 12, note 2. This was in 384 a.d. 

763 IV. 9 and 12 of this book. 

764 On the irregularity of this action, see chap. 15 above, note 1. Sisinnius is again mentioned in VI. 1.31; 
VII. 6 and 12. 

765 Cf. IV. 28. 


Peculiar Schism among the Novations. 

be convened at Angarum, a commercial town near Helenopolis in Bithynia. On assembling 
here they summoned Sabbatius, and desired him to explain the cause of his discontent. 
Upon his affirming that he was troubled about the disagreement that existed respecting the 
Feast of Easter, and that it ought to be kept according to the custom of the Jews, and agreeable 
to that sanction which those convened at Pazum had appointed, the bishops present at the 
Synod perceiving that this assertion was a mere subterfuge to disguise his desire after the 
episcopal chair, obliged him to pledge himself on oath that he would never accept a bishopric. 
When he had so sworn, they passed a canon respecting this feast, which they entitled ‘indif- 
ferent,’ declaring that ‘a disagreement on such a point was not a sufficient reason for separ- 
ation from the church; and that the council of Pazum had done nothing prejudicial to the 
catholic canon. That although the ancients who lived nearest to the times of the apostles 
differed about the observance of this festival, it did not prevent their communion with one 
another, nor create any dissension. Besides that the Novatians at imperial Rome had never 
followed the Jewish usage, but always kept Easter after the equinox; and yet they did not 
separate from those of their own faith, who celebrated it on a different day.’ From these and 
many such considerations, they made the ‘Indifferent’ Canon, above-mentioned, concerning 
Easter, whereby every one was at liberty to keep the custom which he had by predilection 
in this matter, if he so pleased; and that it should make no difference as regards communion, 
but even though celebrating differently they should be in accord in the church. After this 
rule had been thus established, Sabbatius being bound by his oath, anticipated the fast by 
keeping it in private, whenever any discrepancy existed in the time of the Paschal solemnity, 
and having watched all night, he celebrated the sabbath of the passover; then on the next 
day he went to church, and with the rest of the congregation partook of the sacraments. He 
pursued this course for many years, so that it could not be concealed from the people; in 
imitation of which some of the more ignorant, and chiefly the Phrygians and Galatians, 
supposing they should be justified by this conduct imitated him, and kept the passover in 
secret after his manner. But Sabbatius afterwards disregarding the oath by which he had 
renounced the episcopal dignity, held schismatic meetings, and was constituted bishop of 
his followers, as we shall show hereafter. 

766 Probably the modern Angora. Valesius however, had conjecturally substituted the word Sangarum in 
this place, supposing that the place named was a town on the banks of the river Sangarius. 

767 Cf. VII. 5 and 12. 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

Chapter XXII. — The Author’s Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting, 

Marriage, the Eucharist, and Other Ecclesiastical Rites. 

As we have touched the subject I deem it not unreasonable to say a few words concerning 
Easter. It appears to me that neither the ancients nor moderns who have affected to follow 
the Jews, have had any rational foundation for contending so obstinately about it. For they 
have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was changed into Christianity, 
the obligation to observe the Mosaic law and the ceremonial types ceased. And the proof of 
the matter is plain; for no law of Christ permits Christians to imitate the Jews. On the contrary 
the apostle expressly forbids it; not only rejecting circumcision, but also deprecating conten- 
tion about festival days. In his epistle to the Galatians he writes, ‘Tell me ye that desire 
to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?’ And continuing his train of argument, he 
demonstrates that the Jews were in bondage as servants, but that those who have come to 
Christ are ‘called into the liberty of sons. Moreover he exhorts them in no way to regard 
days, and months, and years.’ Again in his epistle to the Colossians he distinctly de- 
clares, that such observances are merely shadows: wherefore he says, ‘Let no man judge you 
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath- 
days; which are a shadow of things to come.’ The same truths are also confirmed by him in 
the epistle to the Hebrews in these words: ‘For the priesthood being changed, there is 

77 q 

made of necessity a change also of the law.’ Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels, 
have anywhere imposed the ‘yoke of servitude on those who have embraced the truth; 
but have left Easter and every other feast to be honored by the gratitude of the recipients of 
grace. Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from 
labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom 
celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Saviour and his apostles have enjoined 
us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, 
punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic law does the Jews. It is merely for 
the sake of historical accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted 
themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the Gospels that our Saviour 

768 Gal. iv. 21. 

769 Gal. v. 13. 

770 Gal. iv. 10. 

771 Col. ii. 16, 17. 

772 Heb. vii. 12. 

773 6 dm6aroAo<;...rd evayyeXia, the two parts of the New Testament, speaking generally. See Sophocles’ Greek 
Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant. Periods under droaroAot; and EuayyeAiov . 

774 Gal. v. 1. 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

nn r 

suffered in the days of ‘unleavened bread. ~ The aim of the apostles was not to appoint 
festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many 
other customs have been established in individual localities according to usage. So also the 
feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the individual peculiarities 
of the peoples inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter. And that the ob- 
servance originated not by legislation, but as a custom the facts themselves indicate. In Asia 
Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath: yet they 
never separated from those who did otherwise, until Victor, bishop of Rome, influenced by 

n If. 

too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the Quartodecimans 
in Asia. Wherefore also Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by 
letter for his immoderate heat; telling him that although the ancients differed in their 
celebration of Easter, they did not desist from intercommunion. Also that Polycarp, bishop 
of Smyrna, who afterwards suffered martyrdom under Gordian, continued to commu- 
nicate with Anicetus bishop of Rome, although he himself, according to the usage of his 
native Smyrna, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the 
fifth book of his Ecclesiastical History. While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the 

day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed, but differed 
as regards the month. The former thought the Jews should be followed, though they were 
not exact: the latter kept Easter after the equinox, refusing to celebrate with the Jews; ‘for,’ 
said they, ‘it ought to be celebrated when the sun is in Aries, in the month called Xanthicus 
by the Antiochians, and April by the Romans.’ In this practice, they averred, they conformed 
not to the modern Jews, who are mistaken in almost everything, but to the ancients, and to 


Josephus according to what he has written in the third book of his Jewish Antiquities. 

775 Matt. xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1; Luke xxii. 1. 

776 reaaapeaKaiSeKarTrai , those who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the lunar month (Nisan of 
the Jewish calendar). On the Quartodeciman controversy, see Schiirer, de Centroversiis Paschalibus secundo post 
Christum natum Sceculo exortis; also, Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 3 ed. p. 252-267. 

Ill Irenaeus, Hcer. III. 3, 4. 

778 Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 156 a.d. (see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. I. p. 629-702, 
containing conclusive proof of this, as well as a history of the question); whence it appears that it was under 
Antoninus Pius that he died. Valesius therefore infers that Socrates meant to speak of Irenaeus as suffering 
martyrdom under Gordian, and not of Polycarp. If this be the case, we must assume a serious corruption of the 
text, or an unparalleled confusion in Socrates. 

779 Euseb. V. 24. 

780 Josephus, Antiq. III. 10. The passage is worth quoting entire, running as follows: ‘In the month Xanthicus, 
which is called Nisan by us, and is the beginning of the year, on the fourteenth day of the moon, while the sun 
is in the sign of Aries (the Ram), for during this month we were freed from bondage under the Egyptians, he 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

Thus these people were at issue among themselves. But all other Christians in the Western 
parts, and as far as the ocean itself, are found to have celebrated Easter after the equinox, 
from a very ancient tradition. And in fact these acting in this manner have never disagreed 
on this subject. It is not true, as some have pretended, that the Synod under Constantine 
altered this festival: for Constantine himself, writing to those who differed respecting it, 

recommended that as they were few in number, they could agree with the majority of their 
brethren. His letter will be found at length in the third book of the Life of Constantine by 


Eusebius; but the passage in it relative to Easter runs thus: 

‘It is a becoming order which all the churches in the Western, Southern, and Northern 
parts of the world observe, and some places in the East also. Wherefore all on the present 
occasion have judged it right, and I have pledged myself that it will have the acquiescence 
of your prudence, that what is unanimously observed in the city of Rome, throughout Italy, 
Africa, and the whole of Egypt, in Spain, France, Britain, Libya, and all Greece, the diocese 
of Asia and Pontus, and Cilicia, your wisdom also will readily embrace; considering not 
only that the number of churches in the aforesaid places is greater, but also that while there 
should be a universal concurrence in what is most reasonable, it becomes us to have nothing 
in common with the perfidious Jews.’ 

Such is the tenor of the emperor’s letter. Moreover the Quartodecimans affirm that the 
observance of the fourteenth day was delivered to them by the apostle John: while the Romans 
and those in the Western parts assure us that their usage originated with the apostles Peter 
and Paul. Neither of these parties however can produce any written testimony in confirmation 
of what they assert. But that the time of keeping Easter in various places is dependent on 
usage, I infer from this, that those who agree in faith, differ among themselves on questions 
of usage. And it will not perhaps be unseasonable to notice here the diversity of customs in 
the churches. The fasts before Easter will be found to be differently observed among 
different people. Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter, excepting Saturdays 
and Sundays. Those in Illyrica and all over Greece and Alexandria observe a fast of six 

has also appointed that we should sacrifice each year the sacrifice which, as we went out of Egypt, they commanded 
us to offer, it being called the Passover.’ 

781 The Audiani, who averred that the Synod of Nicsea first fixed the time of Easter. 

782 Euseb. Life of Constant. III. 19. 

783 Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XX. v. 

784 Baronius (Ann. 57 and 391 a.d.) finds two mistakes here: first, in the assertion that the Romans fasted 
three weeks only before Easter, and second, in the assertion that during those three weeks Saturdays were excepted. 
Cf. also Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Sacres et Ecclesiast. Vol. VIII. p. 523, 524. Valesius, however, quotes Pope Leo 
(fourth sermon on the Lent Fast) and Venerable Beda to prove that Socrates’ assertion concerning the exception 
of Saturday may be defended. See Quesnell, de Jejunio Sabbati; Bingham, Origin. Eccl. XXL 1. 14; also Beveridge, 
de Jejunio Quadragesimali. 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

■70 r 

weeks, which they term ‘The forty days’ fast. Others commencing their fast from the 
seventh week before Easter, and fasting three five days only, and that at intervals, yet call 
that time ‘The forty days’ fast.’ It is indeed surprising to me that thus differing in the number 
of days, they should both give it one common appellation; but some assign one reason for 
it, and others another, according to their several fancies. One can see also a disagreement 
about the manner of abstinence from food, as well as about the number of days. Some wholly 
abstain from things that have life: others feed on fish only of all living creatures: many to- 
gether with fish, eat fowl also, saying that according to Moses, these were likewise made 
out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of fruits: others partake of dry bread 

r 70 r 7 

only; still others eat not even this: while others having fasted till the ninth hour, afterwards 

take any sort of food without distinction. And among various nations there are other usages, 
for which innumerable reasons are assigned. Since however no one can produce a written 
command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in 
the matter, to the end that each might perform what is good not by constraint or necessity. 
Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts. Nor is there less variation in 
regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world 
celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexan- 

dria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. The Egyptians 
in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious as- 
semblies on the sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among 
Christians in general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, 

785 TeaaapaKoartj = Lent; the Latin equivalent is, of course, Quadragesima. 

786 Gen. i. 20. 

787 Valesius rightly conjectures that very few observed this mode of fasting during Lent, basing his opinion 
on the order of worship and various deprecatory expressions in ancient authors with respect to it. It may be 
noted that the Mohammedan Fast of Ramadan is observed on the same principle and in a similar manner. The 
fast begins with the dawn of the sun and continues until sunset, being complete for that space of time. With the 
setting of the sun, however, every person is at liberty to eat as he may please. 

788 ouva^ewv. Sophocles ( Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant. Period ) gives the following senses to the word: 
1. ‘Religious meeting’; 2. ‘Religious service’; 3. ‘Place of meeting’; 4. ‘Congregation.’ To these we may add on the 
authority of Casaubon ( Exercit . XVI. ad Annal. Baronii, No. 42) 5. ‘The celebration of the Eucharist.’ It is in the 
second sense given by Sophocles that it is used here. 

789 i.e. Saturday. Sunday is never called ‘the Sabbath’ by the ancient Fathers and historians, but ‘the Lord’s 
day’ (KuptaKrj). Sophocles ( Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant. Period ) gives three senses to the word; viz., 1. 
‘The Sabbath’ [of the Jews] (so in the LXX and Jewish writers). 2. ‘The week.’ 3. ‘Saturday.’ Many early Christians, 
however, continued to observe the Jewish Sabbath along with the first day of the week. Cf. Bingham, Christ. 
Antiq. XX. 3. 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

in the evening making their offerings 790 they partake of the mysteries. At Alexandria again, 
on the Wednesday in Passion week and on Good Friday, the scriptures are read, and the 
doctors expound them; and all the usual services are performed in their assemblies, except 
the celebration of the mysteries. This practice in Alexandria is of great antiquity, for it appears 
that Origen most commonly taught in the church on those days. He being a very learned 
teacher in the Sacred Books, and perceiving that the ‘impotence of the law of Moses was 

weakened by literal explanation, gave it a spiritual interpretation; declaring that there has 
never been but one true Passover, which the Saviour celebrated when he hung upon the 
cross: for that he then vanquished the adverse powers, and erected this as a trophy against 
the devil. In the same city of Alexandria, readers and chanters are chosen indifferently 
from the catechumens and the faithful; whereas in all other churches the faithful only are 
promoted to these offices. I myself, also, learned of another custom in Thessaly. If a clergyman 
in that country, after taking orders, should sleep with his wife, whom he had legally married 
before his ordination, he would be degraded . 794 In the East, indeed, all clergymen, and even 
the bishops themselves, abstain from their wives: but this they do of their own accord, and 
not by the necessity of any law; for there have been among them many bishops, who have 
had children by their lawful wives, during their episcopate. It is said that the author of the 
usage which obtains in Thessaly was Heliodorus bishop of Tricca in that country; under 
whose name there are love books extant, entitled Ethiopica, which he composed in his 
youth. The same custom prevails at Thessalonica, and in Macedonia, and in Greece. I have 
also known of another peculiarity in Thessaly, which is, that they baptize there on the days 
of Easter only; in consequence of which a very great number of them die without having 
received baptism. At Antioch in Syria the site of the church is inverted; so that the altar does 
not face toward the east, but toward the west. In Greece, however, and at Jerusalem and 

790 itpoacpepovrec; , freely = ‘celebrating the Eucharist.’ Irenaeus, Contra Hceres. XVIII. 3; Euseb. Demonstr. 
Evan. X. 1; Athan. Apol. Contr. Arian, 28. 

791 ‘If any bishop... does not fast on Wednesday or Friday let him be deposed.’ So Apost. Can. 69. These two 
days are universally joined together by the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches. 

792 Cf. Rom. viii. 3. 

793 UTtofioAeu;, lit. = ‘prompters,’ whose duty it was to read the Psalms which the people chanted. 

794 On the celibacy of the clergy and its gradual growth, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. 5; Apost. Can. 51, 
and Council of Gangra, Can. 1 (Hefele, Hist. Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 325 seq.). 

795 A novel on the adventures of Theagenes and Chariclea. The Heliodorus who wrote the Ethiopica was, 
according to Photius, Biblioth. chap. 94, a native of Phoenicia, hence not the same as the bishop of Tricca. Others 
ascribe the Ethiopica to Heliodorus the Sophist, who flourished under the Emperor Hadrian. 

796 According to the Apost. Constit. (II. 57) a church should be built so as to face the east. This regulation 
was generally followed, but there were exceptions. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 3. 2. 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

in Thessaly they go to prayers as soon as the candles are lighted, in the same manner as the 
Novatians do at Constantinople. At Caesarea likewise, and in Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, 
the presbyters and bishops expound the Scriptures in the evening, after the candles are 
lighted. The Novatians of the Hellespont do not perform their prayers altogether in the 
same manner as those of Constantinople; in most things, however, their usage is similar to 
that of the prevailing church. In short, it is impossible to find anywhere, among all the 
sects, two churches which agree exactly in their ritual respecting prayers. At Alexandria no 
presbyter is allowed to address the public: a regulation which was made after Arius had 
raised a disturbance in that church. At Rome they fast every Saturday. At Caesarea of 
Cappadocia they exclude from communion those who have sinned after baptism as the 
Novatians do. The same discipline was practiced by the Macedonians in the Hellespont, 
and by the Quartodecimans in Asia. The Novatians in Phrygia do not admit such as have 
twice married ; 799 but those of Constantinople neither admit nor reject them openly, while 
in the Western parts they are openly received. This diversity was occasioned, as I imagine, 
by the bishops who in their respective eras governed the churches; and those who received 
these several rites and usages, transmitted them as laws to their posterity. However, to give 
a complete catalogue of all the various customs and ceremonial observances in use 
throughout every city and country would be difficult — rather impossible; but the instances 
we have adduced are sufficient to show that the Easter Festival was from some remote pre- 
cedent differently celebrated in every particular province. They talk at random therefore 
who assert that the time of keeping Easter was altered in the Nicene Synod; for the bishops 
there convened earnestly labored to reduce the first dissenting minority to uniformity of 
practice with the rest of the people. Now that many differences existed even in the apostolic 
age of the church occasioned by such subjects, was not unknown even to the apostles 
themselves, as the book of The Acts testifies. For when they understood that a disturbance 
occurred among believers on account of a dissension of the Gentiles, having all met together, 

797 i.e. the catholic or orthodox church; used perhaps in the same way as the expression ‘established church’ 
in modern times. 

798 Apost. Can. 64, provides that no cleric or layman shall fast on the Sabbath day (Saturday, see note 22, 
above), the former on pain of being deposed, the latter, of being excommunicated. It appears, however, that the 
Roman church observed the day as a fast, while the Greek church held it to be a feast. Socrates, however, seems 
to contradict the statement he had made above (see note 17) that at Rome Saturdays and Sundays were excepted 
from the list of fasting days in Lent. From Augustine’s Epistles, 36. 31 et al., it appears that he fasted on Saturday 
and regarded this the regular and proper course to be pursued, and actually pursued by members of the church. 
Hence the present statement of Socrates must be taken as correct to the exclusion of the former. 

799 Apost. Can. 17. ‘He who has been twice married after baptism... cannot become bishop, presbyter, or 
deacon, or any other [cleric] included in the sacerdotal list.’ 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

they promulgated a Divine law, giving it the form of a letter. By this sanction they liberated 
Christians from the bondage of formal observances, and all vain contention about these 
things; and they taught them the path of true piety, prescribing such things only as were 
conducive to its attainment. The epistle itself, which I shall here transcribe, is recorded in 
The Acts of the Apostles . 800 

‘The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the 
Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which 
went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be 
circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good 
unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved 
Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same thing by mouth. 
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than 
these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and 
from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do 
well. Fare ye well.’ 

These things indeed pleased God: for the letter expressly says, ‘It seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.’ There are nev- 
ertheless some persons who, disregarding these precepts, suppose all fornication to be an 
indifferent matter; but contend about holy-days as if their lives were at stake, thus contra- 
vening the commands of God, and legislating for themselves, and making of none effect the 
decree of the apostles: neither do they perceive that they are themselves practicing the con- 
trary to those things which God approved. It is possible easily to extend our discourse re- 
specting Easter, and demonstrate that the Jews observe no exact rule either in the time or 
manner of celebrating the paschal solemnity: and that the Samaritans, who are an offshoot 
from the Jews, always celebrate this festival after the equinox. But this subject would require 
a distinct and copious treatise: I shall therefore merely add, that those who affect so much 

800 Acts xv. 23-39. The quotation is here from the Authorized Version. The Revised has it slightly altered. 
We subjoin it for comparison. ‘The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles 
in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us 
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto 
us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 
men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and 
Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things 
sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep 
yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.’ 


The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting,... 

to imitate the Jews, and are so very anxious about an accurate observance of types, ought 
to depart from them in no particular. For if they have chosen to be so correct, they must 
not only observe days and months, but all other things also, which Christ (who was ‘made 

on i 

under the law’) did in the manner of the Jews; or which he unjustly suffered from them; 
or wrought typically for the good of all men. He entered into a ship and taught. He ordered 
the Passover to be made ready in an upper room. He commanded an ass that was tied to be 
loosed. He proposed a man bearing a pitcher of water as a sign to them for hastening their 
preparations for the Passover. [He did] an infinite number of other things of this nature 
which are recorded in the gospels. And yet those who suppose themselves to be justified by 
keeping this feast, would think it absurd to observe any of these things in a bodily manner. 
For no doctor ever dreams of going to preach from a ship — no person imagines it necessary 
to go up into an upper room to celebrate the Passover there — they never tie, and then loose 
an ass again — and finally no one enjoins another to carry a pitcher of water, in order that 
the symbols might be fulfilled. They have justly regarded such things as savoring rather of 
Judaism: for the Jews are more solicitous about outward solemnities than the obedience of 
the heart; and therefore are they under the curse, because they do not discern the spiritual 
bearing of the Mosaic law, but rest in its types and shadows. Those who favor the Jews admit 
the allegorical meaning of these things; and yet they wage a deadly warfare against the ob- 
servance of days and months, without applying to them a similar sense: thus do they neces- 
sarily involve themselves in a common condemnation with the Jews. 

But enough I think has been said concerning these things. Let us now return to the 
subject we were previously treating of, the fact that the Church once divided did not stay 
with that division, but that those separated were again divided among themselves, taking 
occasion from the most trivial grounds. The Novatians, as I have stated, were divided among 
themselves on account of the feast of Easter, the controversy not being restricted to one 
point only. For in the different provinces some took one view of the question, and some 
another, disagreeing not only about the month, but the days of the week also, and other 
unimportant matters; in some places they hold separate assemblies because of it, in others 
they unite in mutual communion. 

801 Gal. iv. 4. 


Further Dissensions among the Arians at Constantinople. The Psathyrians 

Chapter XXlll.— Further Dissensions among the Arians at Constantinople. The Psathyrians. 

But dissensions arose among the Arians also on this account. The contentious 
questions which were daily agitated among them, led them to start the most absurd propos- 
itions. For whereas it has been always believed in the church that God is the Father of the 
Son, the Word, it was asked whether God could be called ‘Father’ before the Son had sub- 
sistence? Thus in asserting that the Word of God was not begotten of the Father, but was 
created out ‘of nothing,’ and thus falling into error on the chief and main point, they de- 
servedly fell into absurd cavilings about a mere name. Dorotheus therefore being sent for 
by them from Antioch maintained that God neither was nor could be called Father before 
the Son existed. But Marinus whom they had summoned out of Thrace before Dorotheus, 
piqued at the superior deference which was paid to his rival, undertook to defend the contrary 
opinion. In consequence of these things there arose a schism among them, and being thus 
divided respecting this term, each party held separate meetings. Those under Dorotheus 
retained their original places of assembly: but the followers of Marinus built distinct oratories 
for themselves, and asserted that the Father had always been Father, even when the Son was 
not. This section of the Arians was denominated Psathyrians, because one of the most 
zealous defenders of this opinion was Theoctistus, a Syrian by birth, and a cake-seller [Psa- 
thyropola ] 804 by trade. Selenas 805 bishop of the Goths adopted the views of this party, a 
man of mixed descent; he was a Goth by his father’s side, but by his mother’s a Phrygian, 
by which means he taught in the church with great readiness in both these languages. This 
faction however soon quarreled among themselves, Marinus disagreeing with Agapius, 
whom he himself had preferred to the bishopric of Ephesus. They disputed, however, not 
about any point of religion, but in narrow-mindedness about precedence, in which the 
Goths sided with Agapius. Wherefore many of the ecclesiastics under their jurisdiction, 
abominating the vain-glorious contest between these two, abandoned them both, and became 
adherents to the ‘homoousian’ faith. The Arians having continued thus divided among 
themselves during the space of thirty- five years, were reunited in the reign of Theodosius 
the Younger, under the consulate of Plintha the commander-in-chief of the army, he 
being a member of the sect of Psathyrians; these were prevailed on to desist from contention. 
They afterwards passed a resolution, giving it all the cogency of law, that the question which 
had led to their separation, should never be mooted again. But this reconciliation extended 

802 See above, chap. 20. 

803 Cf. Theodoret, Hceret. Fatal. IV. 4; also Sozomen (probably dependent on Socrates), VII. 17. 

804 vj>a0uptov, a species of cake; hence vJja0uporai>Ar|<; , ‘cake-seller.’ 

805 Sozomen (VII. 17) adds that Selenas was a secretary of Ulfllas and had been promoted to be his successor. 
419 a.d. 



Further Dissensions among the Arians at Constantinople. The Psathyrians 

no farther than Constantinople; for in other cities where any of these two parties were found, 
they persisted in their former separation. So much respecting the division among the Arians. 


The Eunomians divide into Several Factions. 

Chapter XXIV. — The Eunomians divide into Several Factions. 

But neither did the followers of Eunomius remain without dissensions: for Eunomius 
himself had long before this separated from Eudoxius who ordained him bishop of Cyzicus, 
taking occasion from that bishop’s refusal to restore to communion his master Aetius who 
had been ejected. But those who derived their name from him were subsequently divided 
into several factions. For first Theophronius a Cappadocian, who had been instructed in 
the art of disputation by Eunomius, and had acquired a smattering of Aristotle’s Categories, 
and his Book of Interpretation, composed some treatises which he entitled, On the Exercise 
of the Mind. Having, however, drawn down upon himself the reprobation of his own sect, 
he was ejected as an apostate. He afterwards held assemblies apart from them, and left behind 
him a heresy which bore his own name. Furthermore at Constantinople a certain Eutychius 
from some absurd dispute, withdrew from the Eunomians, and still continues to hold sep- 
arate meetings. The followers of Theophronius are denominated ‘Eunomiotheophronians’; 
and those of Eutychius have the appellation of ‘Eunomieutychians.’ What those nonsensical 
terms were about which they differed I consider unworthy of being recorded in this history, 
lest I should go into matters foreign to my purpose. I shall merely observe that they adulter- 
ated baptism: for they do not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but into the death of 


Christ. Among the Macedonians also there was for some time a division, when Eutropius 

a presbyter held separate assemblies, and Carterius did not agree with him. There are possibly 
in other cities sects which have emanated from these: but living at Constantinople, where I 
was born and educated, I describe more particularly what has taken place in that city; both 
because I have myself witnessed some of these transactions, and also because the events 
which have there occurred are of pre-eminent importance, and are therefore more worth 
of commemoration. Let it however be understood that what I have here related happened 
at different periods, and not at the same time. But if any one should be desirous of knowing 
the names of the various sects, he may easily satisfy himself, by reading a book entitled 
Ancoratus , 809 composed by Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus: but I shall content myself with 

807 Cf. IV. 7 and 13. 

808 Apost. Can. 50 reads: ‘If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, 
but with one immersion only into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.’ Also the Second General Synod 
(that of Constantinople, 381) in its 7th Canon passed the following: ‘But the Eunomians, who only baptize with 
one immersion, and the Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach the doctrine 
of the Fatherhood of the Son. . . (if they wish to be joined to the Orthodox faith) we receive as heathen; on the 
first day we make them Christians, on the second, catechumens, &c.’ See Hefele, Hist, of the Church Councils, 
Vol. II. p. 367, 368. 

809 Epiphan. Ancoratus, 13. Photius calls the Ancoratus a synopsis of the treatise of Epiphanius on Heresies 
(. Biblioth . 123). The subject here referred to was treated by Epiphanius in Hcer. LXVI. and LXVIII. 


The Eunomians divide into Several Factions. 

what I have already stated. The public affairs were again thrown into agitation from a cause 
I shall now refer to. 


The Usurper Eugenius compasses the Death of Valentinian the Younger. Theodosius... 

Chapter XXV. — The Usurper Eugenius compasses the Death of Valentinian the Younger. 

Theodosius obtains a Victory over him. 

Ol A 

There was in the Western regions a grammarian named Eugenius, who after having 
for some time taught the Latin language, left his school, and was appointed to service at the 
palace, being constituted chief secretary to the emperor. Possessing a considerable degree 
of eloquence, and being on that account treated with greater distinction than others, he was 
unable to bear his good fortune with moderation. For associating with himself Arbogastes, 
a native of Galatia Minor, who then had the command of a division of the army, a man 
harsh in manner and very bloodthirsty, he determined to usurp the sovereignty. These two 
therefore agreed to murder the Emperor Valentinian, having corrupted the eunuchs of the 
imperial bed-chamber. These, on receiving tempting promises of promotion, strangled the 
emperor in his sleep. Eugenius immediately assuming the supreme authority in the Western 
parts of the empire, conducted himself in such a manner as might be expected from a 
usurper. When the Emperor Theodosius was made acquainted with these things, he was 
exceedingly distressed, because his defeat of Maximus had only prepared the way for fresh 
troubles. He accordingly assembled his military forces, and having proclaimed his son 


Honorius Augustus, on the 10th of January, in his own third consulate which he bore 
with Abundantius, he again set out in great haste toward the Western parts, leaving both 
his sons invested with imperial authority at Constantinople. As he marched against Eugenius 
a very great number of the barbarians beyond the Danube volunteered their services, and 
followed him in this expedition. After a rapid march he arrived in the Gauls with a numerous 
army, where Eugenius awaited him, also at the head of an immense body of troops. Accord- 
ingly an engagement took place near the river Frigidus, which is [about thirty-six miles] 
distant [from Aquileia]. In that part of the battle where the Romans fought against their 
own countrymen, the conflict was doubtful: but where the barbarian auxiliaries of the Em- 
peror Theodosius were engaged, the forces of Eugenius had greatly the advantage. When 
the emperor saw the barbarians perishing, he cast himself in great agony upon the ground, 


and invoked the help of God in this emergency: nor was his request unheeded; for Bacurius 
his principal officer, inspired with sudden and extraordinary ardor, rushed with his vanguard 
to the part where the barbarians were hardest pressed, broke through the ranks of the enemy, 
and put to flight those who a little before were themselves engaged in pursuit. Another 

810 This account of Arbogastes and Eugenius is also given by Zosimus (IV. 53-58), who adds that Arbogastes 
was a Frank; and also by Philostorgius (XI. 1), who says that Eugenius was a pagan. 

811 393 a.d. 

812 Cf. Zosimus, IV. 57. 


The Usurper Eugenius compasses the Death of Valentinian the Younger. Theodosius... 

marvelous circumstance also occurred. A violent wind suddenly arose, which retorted upon 
themselves the darts cast by the soldiers of Eugenius, and at the same time drove those 

01 o 

hurled by the imperial forces with increased impetus against their adversaries. So prevalent 

was the emperor’s prayer. The success of the struggle being in this way turned, the usurper 
threw himself at the emperor’s feet, and begged that his life might be spared: but as he lay 
a prostrate suppliant at the feet [of the emperor] he was beheaded by the soldiers, on the 
6th of September, in the third consulate of Arcadius, and the second of Honorius. Arbo- 

gastes, who had been the chief cause of so much mischief, having continued his flight for 
two days after the battle, and seeing no chance of escape, despatched himself with his own 

813 Cf. Zosimus, IV. 58, who gives the additional item that the sun was eclipsed during this battle. 

814 394 a.d. 


Illness and Death of Theodosius the Elder. 

Chapter XXVI . — Illness and Death of Theodosius the Elder. 

The Emperor Theodosius was in consequence of the anxiety and fatigues connected 
with this war thrown into bodily illness; and believing the disease which had attacked him 
would be fatal, he became more concerned about the public affairs than his own life, consid- 
ering how great calamities often overtook the people after the death of their sovereign. He 
therefore hastily summoned his son Honorius from Constantinople, being principally de- 
sirous of setting in order the state of things in the western parts of the empire. After his 
son’s arrival at Milan, he seemed to recover a little, and gave directions for the celebration 
of the games of the hippodrome on account of his victory. Before dinner he was pretty well, 
and a spectator of the sports; but after he had dined he became suddenly too ill to return to 
them, and sent his son to preside in his stead; when the night came on he died, it being the 

01 r 

seventeenth of January, during consulate of Olybrius and Probus. This was in the first 
year of the two hundred and ninety- fourth Olympiad. The emperor Theodosius lived sixty 
years, and reigned sixteen. This book therefore comprehends the transactions of sixteen 
years and eight months. 

815 395 a.d. 

816 There is some doubt as to the length of Theodosius’ life; most of the ancient historians (Sozomen, Theo- 
phanes, Cedrenus) agree with Socrates in giving it as sixty years. Am. Marcellinus Rerum Gestarum, XXIX. 6. 
15, and Victor, Epit. XL VII., leave the impression that he was fifty. 


Book VI 

Book VI. 


The commission with which you charged us, O holy man of God, Theodore, we have 
executed in the five foregoing books; in which to the best of our ability, we have comprised 
the history of the Church from the time of Constantine. Notice, however, that we have been 
by no means studious of style; for we considered that had we showed too great fastidiousness 


about elegance of expression we might have defeated the object in view. But even suppos- 

ing our purpose could still have been accomplished, we were wholly precluded from the 
exercise of that discretionary power of which ancient historians seem to have so largely 
availed themselves, whereby any one of them imagined himself quite at liberty to amplify 
or curtail matters of fact. Moreover, refined composition would by no means be edifying 
to the masses and illiterate men, who are intent merely on knowing the facts, and not on 
admiring beauty of diction. In order therefore not to render my production unprofitable to 
both classes of readers, — to the learned on the one hand, because no elaboration of language 
could satisfy them to rank it with the magniloquence of the writers of antiquity, and to the 
unlearned on the other, because they could not understand the facts, should they be clouded 
by a parade of words, — we have purposely adopted a style, divested indeed of all affectation 
of sublimity, but at the same time clear and perspicuous. 

As we begin, however, our sixth book, we must premise this, that in undertaking to 
detail the events of our own age, we are apprehensive of advancing such things as may be 
unpalatable to many: either because, according to the proverb, ‘Truth is bitter;’ on account 
of our not mentioning with encomium the names of those whom some may love; or from 
our not magnifying their actions. The zealots of our churches will condemn us for not calling 
the bishops ‘Most dear to God,’ ‘Most holy,’ and such like. Others will be litigious because 
we do not bestow the appellations ‘Most divine,’ and ‘Lords’ on the emperors, nor apply to 
them such other epithets as they are commonly assigned. But since I could easily prove from 


the testimony of ancient authors, that among them the servant was accustomed to address 
his master simply by name, without reference to his dignity or titles, on account of the 
pressure of business, I shall in like manner obey the laws of history, which demand a simple 
and faithful narration, unobscured by a veil of any kind. I shall proceed to record accurately 
what I have either myself seen, or have been able to ascertain from actual observers; having 
tested the truth by the unanimity of the witnesses that spoke of the same affairs, and by 
every means I could possibly command. The process of ascertaining the truth was indeed 
laborious, inasmuch as many and different persons gave different accounts and some claimed 

817 Cf. V. Int. 

818 The comic poets, e.g. Menander, Plautus, Terence. 



to be eyewitnesses, while others professed to be more intimately acquainted with these things 
than any others. 


On the Death of Theodosius his Two Sons divide the Empire. Rufinus is slain... 

Chapter I. — On the Death of Theodosius his Two Sons divide the Empire. Rufinus is slain at 
the Feet ofArcadius. 

After the death of the Emperor Theodosius, in the consulate of Olybrius and Probinus 
or the seventeenth of January, his two sons undertook the administration of the Roman 

01 Q 

empire. Thus Arcadius assumed the government of the East, and Honorius of the West. 

At that time Damasus was bishop of the church at Imperial Rome, and Theophilus of that 
of Alexandria, John of Jerusalem, and Flavian of Antioch; while the episcopal chair at Con- 
stantinople or New Rome was filled by Nectarius, as we mentioned in the foregoing book. 
The body of the Emperor Theodosius was taken to Constantinople on the 8th of November 
in the same consulate, and was honorably interred by his son Arcadius with the usual funeral 

OO 1 

solemnities. Not long afterwards on the 28th day of the same month the army also arrived, 
which had served under the Emperor Theodosius in the war against the usurper. When 
therefore according to custom the Emperor Arcadius met the army without the gates, the 
soldiery slew Rufinus the Praetorian prefect. For he was suspected of aspiring to the sover- 
eignty, and had the reputation of having invited into the Roman territories the Huns, a 
barbarous nation, who had already ravaged Armenia, and were then making predatory in- 
cursions into other provinces of the East. On the very day on which Rufinus was killed, 
Marcian bishop of the Novatians died, and was succeeded in the episcopate by Sisinnius, of 


whom we have already made mention. 

819 Cf. Gibbon, Dedine and Fall of the Rom. Empire, chap. 29. 

820 V. 8. 

821 See Bennett, Christian Archaeology, p. 210 seq., and Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XXII. 1 and 2, for details on 
the burial of the dead in the early Church. 

822 Zosimus (V. 5) says Rufinus invited Alaric and the Goths to invade the Roman territories; Valesius recon- 
ciles Socrates’ and Zosimus’ statements by assuming that they are partial and supplementary to one another; 
Rufinus, according to him, invited both the Huns and the Goths. 

823 V. 10,21, etal. 


Death of Nectarius and Ordination of John. 

Chapter II.— Death of Nectarius and Ordination of John. 


A short time after Nectarius also, bishop of Constantinople died, during the consulate 

of Caesarius and Atticus, on the 27th of September. A contest thereupon immediately 
arose respecting the appointment of a successor, some proposing one person, and some 
another: at length however it was determined to send for John, a presbyter of the church 

at Antioch, for there was a report that he was very instructive, and at the same time eloquent. 
By the general consent therefore of both the clergy and laity, he was summoned very soon 
afterwards to Constantinople by the Emperor Arcadius: and to render the ordination more 
authoritative and imposing, several prelates were requested to be present, among whom 
also was Theophilus bishop of Alexandria. This person did everything he could to detract 

from John’s reputation, being desirous of promoting to that see, Isidore a presbyter of 
his own church, to whom he was greatly attached, on account of a very delicate and perilous 
affair which Isidore had undertaken to serve his interests. What this was I must now unfold. 
While the Emperor Theodosius was preparing to attack the usurper Maximus, Theodosius 
sent Isidore with gifts giving twofold letters, and enjoining him to present both the gifts and 
the proper letters to him who should become the victor. In accordance with these injunctions 
Isidore on his arrival at Rome awaited there the event of the war. But this business did not 
long remain a secret: for a reader who accompanied him privately sequestered the letters; 
upon which Isidore in great alarm returned to Alexandria. This was the reason why Theo- 
philus so warmly favored Isidore. The court however gave the preference to John: and 
inasmuch as many had revived the accusations against Theophilus, and prepared for 
presentation to the bishops then convened memorials of various charges, Eutropius the 
chief officer of the imperial bed-chamber collected these documents, and showed them to 
Theophilus, bidding him ‘choose between ordaining John, and undergoing a trial on the 

824 Cf. V. 8. 

825 397 a.d. 

826 The well-known bishop of Antioch and Constantinople, who on account of his extraordinary gift of elo- 
quence was surnamed Chrysostom, ‘the Golden- mouth.’ See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX. Pro- 
legomena on the life and writings of St. John Chrysostom by Dr. Schaff. Also cf. ancient authorities: Palladius, 
Dialogus historicus de vita et conversatione beati Joannis Chrysostomi cum Theodoro Ecclesice Romance diacono; 
Jerome, de Viris Illustribus, c. 129; Sozomen, VIII. 2-23; Theodoret, H. E. V. 27-36; and modern Smith & Wace, 
Diet, of Christ. Biog.; F. W. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, Vol. II. p. 460-527, and many monograms and longer 
or briefer notices in the standard church histories. 

827 Cf. Theodoret, V. 22, under this Theophilus the pagan temples of Mithras and Serapis were attacked, as 
related above in V. 16 and 17. For a fuller notice of Theophilus, see Smith & Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog. 

828 Cf. chap. 9 of this book. 

829 Cf. Zosimus, V. 3, 8, 10, 17, 18, and Eunapius, Fragm. 53, 56. 


Death of Nectarius and Ordination of John. 

charges made against him.’ Theophilus terrified at this alternative, consented to ordain 
John. Accordingly John was invested with the episcopal dignity on the 26th of February, 


under the following consulate, which the Emperor Honorius celebrated with public 
games at Rome, and Eutychian, then Praetorian prefect, at Constantinople. But since the 
man is famous, both for the writings he has left, and the many troubles he fell into, it is 
proper that I should not pass over his affairs in silence, but to relate as compendiously as 
possible whence he was, and from what ancestry; also the particulars of his elevation to the 
episcopate, and the means by which he was subsequently degraded; and finally how he was 
more honored after his death, than he had been during his life. 

830 398 a.d. 


Birth and Education of John Bishop of Constantinople. 

Chapter III . — Birth and Education of John Bishop of Constantinople. 

John was a native of Antioch in Syria-Coele, son of Secundus and Anthusa, and scion 
of a noble family in that country. He studied rhetoric under Libanius the sophist, and 

O') 1 

philosophy under Andragathius the philosopher. Being on the point of entering the 
practice of civil law, and reflecting on the restless and unjust course of those who devote 
themselves to the practice of the forensic courts, he was turned to the more tranquil mode 
of life, which he adopted, following the example of Evagrius. " Evagrius himself had been 
educated under the same masters, and had some time before retired to a private mode of 
life. Accordingly he laid aside his legal habit, and applied his mind to the reading of the 
sacred scriptures, frequenting the church with great assiduity. He moreover induced 
Theodore and Maximus, who had been his fellow- students under Libanius the sophist, to 
forsake a profession whose primary object was gain, and embrace a life of greater simplicity. 


Of these two persons, Theodore afterwards became bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and 
Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. At that time being ardent aspirants after perfection, they 
entered upon the ascetic life, under the guidance of Diodorus and Carterius, who then 
presided over a monastic institution. The former of these was subsequently elevated to the 
bishopric of T arsus, and wrote many treatises, in which he limited his attention to the literal 


sense of scripture, avoiding that which was mystical. But enough respecting these persons. 

00 /r 

Now John was then living on the most intimate terms with Basil, at that time constituted 

831 Sozomen (VIII. 2) also says that Chrysostom went from the school of Libanius to a private life instead of 
the legal profession as was expected of him, but from some utterances of Libanius, as well as from Chrysostom’s 
own representation, de Sacerdot. I. 1.4, it appears that he had spent some time in the practice of the law. 

832 It is not certain who this Evagrius was. Valesius thinks he was the presbyter of that name mentioned by 
Jerome, de Scriptor. Eccl. 

833 It has been supposed by some that this was the Theodore addressed in II. 1, VI. Int. and VII. 47; but not 
with good reason. Cf. note 4, p. xii. of Int. On Theodore of Mopsuestia, the great ‘Exegete’ and theologian, see 
Smith &Wace; also Sieffert, Theodor. Mopsuestenus Vet. Test. Sobrie Interpret. Vindex andH. B. Swete, Theodori 
Episc. Mopsuestice in Epp. B. Pauli. Commentarii. 

834 Sozomen also attests the simplicity of Diodorus’ interpretations of the Old Testament. The principle 
which he adopted, of seeking for a literal and historical meaning in preference to the allegorical and mystical 
interpretations attached to the Old Testament by Origen and the Alexandrians, became the corner-stone of the 
Antiochian system of interpretation as elaborated by his pupils Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret. 

835 Betoptac; lit. ‘speculations’ by which are evidendy meant the allegorical and subjective or contemplative 
explanations of the Alexandrians. 

836 ‘Socrates and Kurtz (in the tenth edition of his Kirchengeschichte, I. 223) confound this Basil with Basil 
the Great of Cappadocia, who was eighteen years older than Chrysostom, and died in 379. Chrysostom’s friend 
was probably (as Baronius and Montfaucon conjecture) identical with Basil, bishop of Raphanea in Syria, near 


Birth and Education of John Bishop of Constantinople. 

a deacon by Meletius, but afterwards ordained bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Accordingly 
Zeno the bishop on his return from Jerusalem, appointed him a reader in the church at 
Antioch. While he continued in the capacity of a reader he composed the book Against the 
Jews. Meletius having not long after conferred on him the rank of deacon, he produced his 


work On the Priesthood, and those Against Stagirius; and moreover those also On the 


Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, and On the Women who lived with the Ecclesi- 
astics. Afterwards, upon the death of Meletius at Constantinople, — for there he had gone 
on account of Gregory Nazianzen’s ordination, — John separated himself from the Meletians, 
without entering into communion with Paulinus, and spent three whole years in retirement. 
Later, when Paulinus was dead, he was ordained a presbyter by Evagrius the successor of 
Paulinus. Such is a brief outline of John’s career previous to his call to the episcopal office. 
It is said that on account of his zeal for temperance he was stern and severe; and one of his 
early friends has said ‘that in his youth he manifested a proneness to irritability, rather than 
to modesty.’ Because of the rectitude of his life, he was free from anxiety about the future, 
and his simplicity of character rendered him open and ingenuous; nevertheless the liberty 
of speech he allowed himself was offensive to very many. In public teaching he was powerful 
in reforming the morals of his auditors; but in private conversation he was frequently thought 
haughty and assuming by those who did not know him. 

Antioch, who attended the Council of Constantinople in 381.’ Comp. Venables in Smith and Wace; Schaff in 
Prolegomena to Vol. IX. of The Nicene and Post-Nicetie Fathers, p. 6, note 2. The conjecture of Baronius is as- 
sented to also by Valesius. 

837 According to Baronius, this Zeno was bishop of Tyre, but Valesius makes an ingenious objection to this 
view, and asserts that some other city must have been the real see of Zeno. 

838 This treatise, commonly termed de Sacerdotio, and the Homilies are the most famous of Chrysostom’s 
works; for a full account, as well as translation, of these works, see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX. 

839 These were women who lived in the houses of the clergy as sisters, and exercised themselves in works of 
piety and charity. At a very early period, however, scandal seems to have arisen from this practice, and strong 
measures were repeatedly adopted by the Church for their suppression. Paul of Samosata was, according to 
Eusebius ( H . E. VII. 30), deposed partly for keeping these sisters in his house. They were called Syneisactae 
(EuvetoaKtot ). Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XVII. 5. 20, and Council of Nicaea, Can. 3. Hefele, Hist, of Ch. 
Councils, Vol. I. p. 379. 


Of Serapion the Deacon on whose Account John becomes Odious to his Cler... 

Chapter IV . — Of Serapion the Deacon on whose Account John becomes Odious to his Clergy. 

Being such in disposition and manners, and promoted to the episcopacy, John was led 
to conduct himself toward his clergy with more than proper superciliousness, designing to 
correct the morals of the clergy under him. Having thus chafed the temper of the ecclesiastics, 
he was disliked by them; and so many of them stood aloof from him as a passionate man, 
and others became his bitter enemies. Serapion, a deacon of his retinue, led him to alienate 
their minds still more from him; and once in presence of the whole assembled clergy he 
cried out with a loud voice to the bishop — ‘You will never be able to govern these men, my 
lord, unless you drive them all with a rod.’ This speech of his excited a general feeling of 
animosity against the bishop; the bishop also not long after expelled many of them from 
the church, some for one cause, and some for another. And, as it usually happens when 
persons in office adopt such violent measures, those who were thus expelled by him formed 
combinations and inveighed against him to the people. What contributed greatly to gain 
credence for these complaints was the fact that the bishop was not willing to eat with any 
one else, and never accepted an invitation to a feast. On account of this the plot against him 
became widespread. His reasons for not eating with others no one knew with any certainty , 840 
but some persons in justification of his conduct state that he had a very delicate stomach, 
and weak digestion, which obliged him to be careful in his diet, and therefore he ate alone; 
while others thought this was due to his rigid and habitual abstinence. Whatever the real 
motive may have been, the circumstance itself contributed not a little to the grounds of ac- 
cusation by his calumniators. The people nevertheless continued to regard him with love 
and veneration, on account of his valuable discourses in the church, and therefore those 
who sought to traduce him, only brought themselves into contempt. How eloquent, convin- 
cing, and persuasive his sermons were, both those which were published by himself, and 
such as were noted down by short-hand writers as he delivered them, why should we stay 
to declare? Those who desire to form an adequate idea of them, must read for themselves, 
and will thereby derive both pleasure and profit. 

840 These reasons are given by Palladius as follows: ‘He was accustomed to eat alone, as I partially know, for 
these reasons: first, he drank no wine. . .secondly, his stomach was, on account of certain infirmities, irregular, 
so that often the food prepared for him was repugnant, and other food not put before him was desired. Again 
he at times neglected to eat, lengthening out his meal until evening, sometimes being absorbed in ecclesiastical 
cares and sometimes in contemplation;. . .but it is a custom with table companions if we do not relish the same 
articles of food which they do, or laugh at insignificant witticisms. . .to make this an occasion of ill-speech.’ Pal- 
ladius, de Vita S. Joannis, 12. 


John draws down upon Himself the Displeasure of Many Persons of Rank and... 

Chapter V. — John draws down upon Himself the Displeasure of Many Persons of Rank and 

Power. Of the Eunuch Eutropius. 

As long as John was in conflict with the clergy only, machinations against him were 
utterly powerless; but when he proceeded to rebuke many of those in public office also with 
immoderate vehemence, the tide of unpopularity began to set against him with far greater 
impetus. Hence many stories were told to his disparagement. And most of these found at- 
tentive and believing listeners. This growing prejudice was not a little increased by an oration 
which he pronounced at that time against Eutropius. For Eutropius was the chief eunuch 
of the imperial bed-chamber, and the first of all eunuchs that was admitted to the dignity 
of consul. He, desiring to inflict vengeance on certain persons who had taken refuge in the 
churches, induced the emperors to make a law excluding delinquents from the privilege 
of sanctuary, and authorizing the seizure of those who had sought the shelter of the sacred 
edifices. But its author was punished for this almost immediately; for scarcely had the law 
been promulgated, before Eutropius himself, having incurred the displeasure of the emperor, 
fled for protection to the church. " The bishop therefore, while Eutropius trembling with 
fear lay under the table of the altar, mounting the pulpit from which he was accustomed 
to address the people in order to be the more distinctly heard, uttered an invective against 
him: wherefore he seemed to create greater displeasure in some, as he not only denied 
compassion to the unfortunate, but added insult to cruelty. By the emperor’s order however, 
for certain offences committed by him, Eutropius, though bearing the consulate, was decap- 
itated, and his name effaced from the list of consuls, that of Theodore his colleague being 
alone suffered to remain as in office for that year . 844 It is said that John afterwards used the 
same license towards Gainas also, who was then commander-in-chief of the army; treating 
him with characteristic rudeness, because he had presumed to request the emperor to assign 
the Arians, with whom he agreed in sentiment, one of the churches within the city. Many 
others also of the higher orders, for a variety of causes, he censured with the same uncere- 
monious freedom, so that by these means he created many powerful adversaries. Wherefore 

841 Sozomen (VIII. 7) says that this law was rescinded very soon afterwards. 

842 See also Chrysostom, Orat. in Entropium, 1. 3 ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX. p. 251). From 
these statements it appears that Zosimus is in error when he says (V. 18) that Eutropius was seized in violation 
of the law of sanctuary and taken out of the church. Chrysostom assigns his seizure to a time when he had left 
the church for some purpose or other. 

843 ap(3wv, high reading-desk from which the Scriptures were recited, situated toward the middle of the 
church and distinguished from the altar, where the main service of worship was chanted. Bishops were accustomed 
to preach from the steps of the altar (cf. Bingham Christ. Antiq. VIII. 4. 5); but Chrysostom, on account of his 
little stature, as some say, used the ‘ambon’ as a pulpit. 

844 399 a.d. 


John draws down upon Himself the Displeasure of Many Persons of Rank and... 

Theophilus bishop of Alexandria, immediately after his ordination, was plotting his over- 
throw; and concerted measures for this purpose in secret, both with the friends who were 
around him, and by letter with such as were at a distance. For it was not so much the boldness 
with which John lashed whatever was obnoxious to him, that affected Theophilus, as his 
own failure to place his favorite presbyter Isidore in the episcopal chair of Constantinople. 
In such a state were the affairs of John the bishop at that time; mischief thus threatened him 
at the very commencement of his episcopate. But we shall enter into these things more at 
large as we proceed. 


Gamas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power; after filling Constantinople... 

Chapter VI. — Ga'inas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power; after filling Con- 
stantinople with Disorder, he is slain. 

I shall now narrate some memorable circumstances that occurred at that period, in 
which it will be seen how Divine Providence interposed by extraordinary agencies for the 
preservation of the city and Roman empire from the utmost peril. Ga'inas was a barbarian 
by extraction but after becoming a Roman subject, and having engaged in military service, 
and risen by degrees from one rank to another, he was at length appointed general-in-chief 
both of the Roman horse and foot. When he had obtained this lofty position, he forgot his 
position and relations, and was unable to restrain himself and on the other hand according 
to the common saying ‘left no stone unturned’ in order to gain control of the Roman gov- 
ernment. To accomplish this he sent for the Goths out of their own country, and gave the 
principal commissions in the army to his relations. Then when Tribigildus, one of his 
kinsmen who had the command of the forces in Phrygia, had at the instigation of Ga'inas 
broken out into open revolt, and was filling the people of Phrygia with confusion and dismay, 
he managed to have deputed to him the oversight of matters in the disturbed province. Now 
the Emperor Arcadius not suspecting [any harm] committed the charge of these affairs to 
him. Ga'inas therefore immediately set out at the head of an immense number of the barbar- 
ous Goths, apparently on an expedition against Tribigildus, but with the real intention of 
establishing his own unjust domination. On reaching Phrygia he began to subvert everything. 
Consequently the affairs of the Romans were immediately thrown into great consternation, 
not only on account of the vast barbarian force which Ga'inas had at his command, but also 
because the most fertile and opulent regions of the East were threatened with desolation. 
In this emergency the emperor, acting with much prudence, sought to arrest the course of 
the barbarian by address: he accordingly sent him an embassy with instructions to appease 
him for the present by every kind of concession. Ga'inas having demanded that Saturninus 
and Aurelian, two of the most distinguished of the senatorial order, and men of consular 
dignity, whom he knew to be unfavorable to his pretensions, should be delivered up to him, 
the emperor most unwillingly yielded to the exigency of the crisis; and these two persons, 
prepared to die for the public good, nobly submitted themselves to the emperor’s disposal. 
They therefore proceeded to meet the barbarian, at a place used for horse-racing some dis- 
tance from Chalcedon, being resolved to endure whatever he might be disposed to inflict; 
but however they suffered no harm. The usurper simulating dissatisfaction, advanced to 
Chalcedon, whither the emperor Arcadius also went to meet him. Both then entered the 
church where the body of the martyr Euphemia is deposited, and there entered into a mu- 
tual pledge on oath that neither would plot against the other. The emperor indeed kept his 
engagement, having a religious regard to an oath, and being on that account beloved of God. 
But Ga'inas soon violated it, and did not swerve from his original purpose; on the contrary 
he was intent on carnage, plunder, and conflagration, not only against Constantinople, but 


Gamas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power; after filling Constantinople... 

also against the whole extent of the Roman empire, if he could by any means carry it into 
effect. The city was accordingly quite inundated by the barbarians, and its residents were 
reduced to a condition equivalent to that of captives. Moreover so great was the danger of 
the city that a comet of prodigious magnitude, reaching from heaven even to the earth, such 


as was never before seen, gave forewarning of it. Gainas first most shamelessly attempted 

to make a seizure of the silver publicly exposed for sale in the shops: but when the proprietors, 
advised beforehand by report of his intention, abstained from exposing it on their counters, 
his thoughts were diverted to another object, which was to send an immense body of bar- 
barians at night for the purpose of burning down the palace. Then indeed it appeared dis- 
tinctly that God had providential care over the city: for a multitude of angels appeared to 
the rebels, in the form of armed men of gigantic stature, before whom the barbarians, ima- 
gining them to be a large army of brave troops, turned away with terror and departed. When 
this was reported to Gainas, it seemed to him quite incredible — for he knew that the greatest 
part of the Roman army was at a distance, dispersed as a garrison over the Eastern cities — and 
he sent others on the following night and repeatedly afterwards. Now as they constantly 
returned with the same statement — for the angels of God always presented themselves in 
the same form — he came with a great multitude, and at length became himself a spectator 
of the prodigy. Then supposing that what he saw was really a body of soldiers, and that they 
concealed themselves by day, and baffled his designs by night, he desisted from his attempt, 
and took another resolution which he conceived would be detrimental to the Romans; but 
the event proved it to be greatly to their advantage. Pretending to be under demoniacal 
possession, he went forth as if for prayer to the church of St. John the Apostle, which is seven 
miles distant from the city. Together with him went barbarians who carried out arms, having 
concealed them in casks and other specious coverings. And when the soldiers who guarded 
the city gates detected these, and would not suffer them to pass, the barbarians drew their 
swords and put them to death. A fearful tumult thence arose in the city, and death seemed 
to threaten every one; nevertheless the city continued secure at that time, its gates being 
every where well defended. The emperor with timely wisdom proclaimed Gainas a public 
enemy, and ordered that all the barbarians who remained shut up in the city should be slain. 
Thus one day after the guards of the gates had been killed, the Romans attacked the barbar- 
ians within the walls near the church of the Goths — for thither such of them as had been 
left in the city had betaken themselves — and after destroying a great number of them they 
set the church on fire, and burnt it to the ground. Gainas being informed of the slaughter 
of those of his party who did not manage to get out of the city, and perceiving the failure of 
all his artifices, left St. John’s church, and advanced rapidly towards Thrace. On reaching 
the Chersonnese he endeavored to pass over from thence and take Lampsacus, in order that 

845 Cf. Vergil, Georg. I. 488, ‘Nec diri toties arsere cometse’; and Am. X. 272-274. 


Gamas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power; after filling Constantinople... 

from that place he might make himself master of the Eastern parts. As the emperor had 
immediately dispatched forces in pursuit both by land and by sea, another wonderful inter- 
position of Divine Providence occurred. For while the barbarians, destitute of ships, hastily 
put together rafts and were attempting to cross on them, suddenly the Roman fleet appeared, 
and the west wind began to blow hard. This afforded an easy passage to the Romans; but 
the barbarians with their horses, tossed up and down in their frail barks by the violence of 
the gale, were at length overwhelmed by the waves; many of them also were destroyed by 
the Romans. In this manner during the passage a vast number of the barbarians perished; 
but Ga'inas departing thence fled into Thrace, where he fell in with another body of the 
Roman forces and was slain by them together with the barbarians that attended him. Let 
this cursory notice of Ga'inas suffice here. 

Those who may desire more minute details of the circumstances of that war, should 

a An 

read The Ga'inea of Eusebius Scholasticus, who was at that time a pupil of Troi'lus the 
sophist; and having been a spectator of the war, related the events of it in an heroic poem 
consisting of four books; and inasmuch as the events alluded to had but recently taken place, 
he acquired for himself great celebrity. The poet Ammonius has also very lately composed 
another description in verse of the same transactions, which he recited before the emperor 


in the sixteenth consulate of Theodosius the younger, which he bore with Faustus. 

This war was terminated under the consulate of Stilicho and Aurelian . 849 The year fol- 


lowing, the consulate was celebrated by Fravitus also a Goth by extraction, who was 
honored by the Romans, and showed great fidelity and attachment to them, rendering im- 
portant services in this very war. For this reason he attained to the dignity of consul. In that 
year on the tenth of April there was born a son to the Emperor Arcadius, the good 

But while the affairs of the state were thus troubled, the dignitaries of the Church re- 
frained not in the least from their disgraceful cabals against each other, to the great reproach 
of the Christian religion; for during this time the ecclesiastics incited tumults against each 
other. The source of the mischief originated in Egypt in the following manner. 

846 Cf. an account of Ga'inas and his rebellion in Zosimus, V. 

847 On the surname of ‘Scholasticus,’ see Introd. p. ix. note 
Scholasticus, see Smith and Wace, Eusebius (134) Scholasticus. 

848 438 a.d. 

849 400 a.d. 

850 401 a.d. 


20, also Macar. Homil. 15, §24. On Eusebius 


Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the... 

Chapter VII . — Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the 

Desert. Condemnation of Origen’s Books. 

or i 

The question had been started a little before, whether God is a corporeal existence, 
and has the form of man; or whether he is incorporeal, and without human or, generally 
speaking, any other bodily shape? From this question arose strifes and contentions among 
a very great number of persons, some favoring one opinion on the subject, and others pat- 
ronizing the opposite. Very many of the more simple ascetics asserted that God is corporeal, 
and has a human figure: but most others condemn their judgment, and contended that God 
is incorporeal, and free of all form whatever. With these latter Theophilus bishop of Alexan- 
dria agreed so thoroughly that in the church before all the people he inveighed against those 
who attributed to God a human form, expressly teaching that the Divine Being is wholly 
incorporeal. When the Egyptian ascetics were apprised of this, they left their monasteries 
and came to Alexandria; where they excited a tumult against the bishop, accusing him of 
impiety, and threatening to put him to death. Theophilus becoming aware of his danger, 
after some consideration had recourse to this expedient to extricate himself from the 
threatened death. Going to the monks, he in a conciliatory tone thus addressed them: ‘In 
seeing you, I behold the face of God.’ The utterance of this saying moderated the fury of 
these men and they replied: ‘If you really admit that God’s countenance is such as ours, 


anathematize Origen’s book; for some drawing arguments from them oppose themselves 
to our opinion. If you will not do this, expect to be treated by us as an impious person, and 
the enemy of God.’ ‘But as far as I am concerned,’ said Theophilus, ‘I will readily do what 
you require: and be ye not angry with me, for I myself also disapprove of Origen’s works, 
and consider those who countenance them deserving of censure.’ Thus he succeeded in 
appeasing and sending away the monks at that time; and probably the whole dispute respect- 
ing this subject would have been set at rest, had it not been for another circumstance which 
happened immediately after. Over the monasteries in Egypt there were four devout persons 
as superintendents named Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius: these men 
were brothers, and had the appellation of ‘the Tall Monks’ given them on account of their 
stature. They were moreover distinguished both for the sanctity of their lives, and the extent 
of their erudition, and for these reasons their reputation was very high at Alexandria. 
Theophilus in particular, the prelate of that city, loved and honored them exceedingly: in- 

851 By Audius or Audaeus, the founder of the Audian heresy. Cf. Epiphan. Hcer. LXX.; Walch, Histor. der 
Ketzereien, Vol. III. p. 300; also Iselin, Audios und die Audianer, in Jahrbucher fur Protestant. Theologie, April, 
1890; p. 298 seq. 

852 On the dispute concerning Origen’s views, see below, chap. 13. 


Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the... 


somuch that he constituted one of them, Dioscorus, bishop of Hermopolis against his 
will, having forcibly drawn him from his retreat. Two of the others he entreated to continue 
with him, and with difficulty prevailed upon them to do so; still by the exercise of his author- 
ity as bishop he accomplished his purpose: when therefore he had invested them with the 
clerical office, he committed to their charge the management of ecclesiastical affairs. They, 
constrained by necessity, performed the duties thus imposed on them successfully; never- 
theless they were dissatisfied because they were unable to follow philosophical pursuits and 
ascetic exercises. And as in process of time, they thought they were being spiritually injured, 
observing the bishop to be devoted to gain, and greedily intent on the acquisition of wealth, 
and according to the common saying ‘leaving no stone unturned’ for the sake of gain, they 
refused to remain with him any longer, declaring that they loved solitude, and greatly pre- 
ferred it to living in the city. As long as he was ignorant of the true motive for their departure, 
he earnestly begged them to abide with him; but when he perceived that they were dissatisfied 
with his conduct, he became excessively irritated, and threatened to do them all kinds of 
mischief. But they making little account of his menaces retired into the desert; upon which 
Theophilus, who was evidently of a hasty and malignant temperament, raised not a small 
clamor against them, and by every contrivance earnestly sought to do them injury. He also 
conceived a dislike against their brother Dioscorus, bishop of Hermopolis. He was moreover 
extremely annoyed at the esteem and veneration in which he was held by the ascetics. Being 
aware, however, that he would be able to do no harm to these persons unless he could stir 
up hostility in the minds of the monks against them, he used this artifice to effect it. He well 
knew that these men in their frequent theological discussions with him, had maintained 
that the Deity was incorporeal, and by no means had a human form; because [they argued] 
such a constitution would involve the necessary accompaniment of human passions. Now 
this has been demonstrated by the ancient writers and especially Origen. Theophilus, however 
though entertaining the very same opinion respecting the Divine nature, yet to gratify his 
vindictive feelings, did not hesitate to pervert what he and they had rightly taught: but im- 


posed upon the majority of the monks, men who were sincere but ‘rude in speech, the 
greater part of whom were quite illiterate. Sending letters to the monasteries in the desert, 
he advised them not to give heed either to Dioscorus or to his brothers, inasmuch as they 
affirmed that God had not a body. ‘Whereas,’ said he, ‘according to the sacred Scripture 
God has eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have; but the partisans of Dioscorus, being fol- 
lowers of Origen, introduce the blasphemous dogma that God has neither eyes, ears, feet, 

853 There were two cities named Hermopolis in Egypt; the most important of these in the Thebaid was known 
as Hermopolis proper, whereas the other (the one here alluded to) was situated in lower Egypt and designated 
Hermopolis parva. 

854 2 Cor. xi. 6. 


Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the... 

nor hands.’ By this sophism he took advantage of the simplicity of these monks and thus a 
hot dissension was stirred up among them. Such as had a cultivated mind indeed were not 
beguiled by this plausibility, and therefore still adhere to Dioscorus and Origen; but the 
more ignorant who greatly exceeded the others in number, inflamed by an ardent zeal 
without knowledge, immediately raised an outcry against their brethren. A division being 
thus made, both parties branded each other as impious; and some listening to Theophilus 
called their brethren ‘Origenists,’ and ‘impious’ and the others termed those who were 
convinced by Theophilus ‘Anthropomorphitae.’ On this account violent altercation arose, 
and an inextinguishable war between the monks. Theophilus on receiving intimation of the 
success of his device, went to Nitria where the monasteries are, accompanied by a multitude 
of persons, and armed the monks against Dioscorus and his brethren; who being in danger 
of losing their lives, made their escape with great difficulty. 

While these things were in progress in Egypt John bishop of Constantinople was ignorant 
of them, but flourished in eloquence and became increasingly celebrated for his discourses. 
Moreover he first enlarged the prayers contained in the nocturnal hymns, for the reason I 
am about to assign. 


The Arians and the Supporters of the 'Homoousion ' hold Nocturnal Assemblies. . . 

Chapter VIII. — The Arians and the Supporters of the ‘Homoousion’ hold Nocturnal Assemblies 

and sing Antiphonal Hymns, a Species of Composition ascribed to Ignatius, surnamed 


Theophorus. Conflict between the Two Parties. 

The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often therefore as 
the festal days occurred — I mean Saturday and Lord’s day — in each week, on which as- 
semblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the 
public squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy. This they did during 
the greater part of the night: and again in the morning, chanting the same songs which they 
called responsive, they paraded through the midst of the city, and so passed out of the gates 
to go to their places of assembly. But since they did not desist from making use of insulting 
expressions in relation to the Homoousians, often singing such words as these: ‘Where are 
they that say three things are but one power?’ — John fearing lest any of the more simple 
should be drawn away from the church by such kind of hymns, opposed to them some of 
his own people, that they also employing themselves in chanting nocturnal hymns, might 
obscure the effort of the Arians, and confirm his own party in the profession of their faith. 
John’s design indeed seemed to be good, but it issued in tumult and dangers. For as the 
Homoousians performed their nocturnal hymns with greater display, — for there were inven- 
ted by John silver crosses for them on which lighted wax-tapers were carried, provided at 
the expense of the empress Eudoxia, — the Arians who were very numerous, and fired with 
envy, resolved to revenge themselves by a desperate and riotous attack upon their rivals. 
For from the remembrance of their own recent domination, they were full of confidence in 
their ability to overcome, and of contempt for their adversaries. Without delay therefore, 
on one of these nights, they engaged in a conflict; and Briso, one of the eunuchs of the 
empress, who was at that time leading the chanters of these hymns, was wounded by a stone 
in the forehead, and also some of the people on both sides were killed. Whereupon the em- 
peror being angered, forbade the Arians to chant their hymns any more in public. Such 
were the events of this occasion. 

We must now however make some allusion to the origin of this custom in the church 
of responsive singing. Ignatius third bishop of Antioch in Syria from the apostle Peter, 

855 Oeocpopoi; = ‘borne by God,’ used in the sense of being ‘possessed by a god,’ ‘inspired,’ by TEsch. Agam. 
1150; but here ‘borne in the arms of God’ or ‘carried by God,’ and applied to Ignatius because tradition made 
him the very child whom the Saviour ‘took up in his arms,’ and set in the midst of his disciples. Cf. Mark ix. 36; 
to be distinguished therefore from ©eocpopoc;, ‘bearing’ or ‘carrying a god.’ 

856 The ancient Christians observed the Lord’s day as the greatest day of the week, and also in the second 
place the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday. See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XX. 2, on the Lord’s day, and 3, on the Sabbath. 

857 There has been some difference of opinion as to whether Socrates is correct in here ascribing the institution 
of responsive chants to Ignatius. Valesius doubts Socrates’ accuracy, but other authorities are inclined to the 


The Arians and the Supporters of the 'Homoousion ' hold Nocturnal Assemblies. . . 

who also had held intercourse with the apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels hymning 
in alternate chants the Holy Trinity. Accordingly he introduced the mode of singing he had 
observed in the vision into the Antiochian church; whence it was transmitted by tradition 
to all the other churches. Such is the account [we have received] in relation to these responsive 

view that Ignatius did introduce these chants, and Flavian and Diodorus, during the reign of Constantine, to 
whom Valesius ascribes their origin, simply developed them. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XIV. 1. 


Dispute between Theophilus and Peter leading to an Attempt on the Part of... 

Chapter IX. — Dispute between Theophilus and Peter leading to an Attempt on the Part of the 

Former to depose John Bishop of Constantinople. 

Not long after this, the monks of the desert, together with Dioscorus and his brothers, 


came to Constantinople. There was also with them Isidore, formerly the most intimate 
friend of the bishop Theophilus, but then become his bitterest enemy, on account of the 


following circumstance: A certain man named Peter was at that time the archpresbyter 
of the Alexandrian church; Theophilus being irritated against this person, determined to 
eject him from the church; and as the ground of expulsion, he brought the charge against 
him of having admitted to a participation of the sacred mysteries, a woman of the Manichaean 
sect, without first compelling her to renounce her Manichaean heresy. As Peter in his defence 
declared, that not only had the errors of this woman been previously abjured, but that 
Theophilus himself had sanctioned her admission to the eucharist, Theophilus became in- 
dignant, as if he had been grievously calumniated; whereupon he affirmed that he was alto- 
gether unacquainted with the circumstance. Peter therefore summoned Isidore to bear 
witness to the bishop’s knowledge of the facts concerning the woman. Now Isidore happened 
to be then at Rome, on a mission from Theophilus to Damasus the prelate of the imperial 
city, for the purpose of affecting a reconciliation between him and Flavian bishop of Antioch; 
for the adherents of Meletius had separated from Flavian in detestation of his perjury, as 
we have already observed. When Isidore had returned from Rome, and was cited as a 
witness by Peter, he deposed that the woman was received by consent of the bishop; and 
that he himself had administered the sacrament to her. Upon this Theophilus became enraged 
and in anger ejected them both. This furnished the reason for Isidore’s going to Con- 
stantinople with Dioscorus and his brethren, in order to submit to the cognizance of the 
emperor, and John the bishop, the injustice and violence with which Theophilus had treated 
them. John, on being informed of the facts, gave the men an honorable reception, and did 
not exclude them from communion at prayers, but postponed their communion of the 
sacred mysteries, until their affairs should be examined into. Whilst matters were in this 
posture, a false report was brought to Theophilus’ ears, that John had both admitted them 
to a participation of the mysteries, and was also ready to give them assistance; wherefore he 
resolved not only to be revenged on Isidore and Dioscorus, but also if possible to cast John 
out of his episcopal chair. With this design he wrote to all the bishops of the various cities, 
and concealing his real motive, ostensibly condemned therein the books of Origen merely: 

858 For an account of Theophilus’ outrageous treatment of Isidore, see Palladius, Vita S. Joannis Chrysost. 
chap. 6. 

859 See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 19-18, for a statement of the functions of this office. 

860 See above, V. 15. 


Dispute between Theophilus and Peter leading to an Attempt on the Part of... 

o/r i 

which Athanasius, his predecessor, had used in confirmation of his own faith, frequently 
appealing to the testimony and authority of Origen’s writings, in his orations against the 

861 Cf. Athan. de Deer. Nic. 27. 


Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus convenes a Synod to condemn the Books of Or. . . 

Chapter X . — Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus convenes a Synod to condemn the Books ofOrigen. 

He moreover renewed his friendship with Epiphanius bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, 
with whom he had formerly been at variance. For Theophilus accused Epiphanius of enter- 

Q /TO 

taining low thoughts of God, by supposing him to have a human form. Now although 
Theophilus was really unchanged in sentiment, and had denounced those who thought that 
the divinity was human in form, yet on account of his hatred of others, he openly denied 
his own convictions; and he now professed to be friendly with Epiphanius, as if he had 
altered his mind and agreed with him in his views of God. He then managed it so that Epi- 
phanius by letter should convene a Synod of the bishops in Cyprus, in order to condemn 
the writings of Origen. Epiphanius being on account of his extraordinary piety a man of 
simple mind and manners was easily influenced by the letters of Theophilus: having therefore 
assembled a council of bishops in that island, he caused a prohibition to be therein made 
of the reading of Origen’s works. He also wrote to John, exhorting him to abstain from the 
study of Origen’s books, and to convoke a Synod for decreeing the same thing as he had 
done. Accordingly when Theophilus had in this way deluded Epiphanius, who was famous 
for his piety, seeing his design prosper according to his wish, he became more confident, 
and himself also assembled a great number of bishops. In that convention, pursuing the 
same course as Epiphanius, he caused a like sentence of condemnation to be pronounced 
on the writings of Origen, who had been dead nearly two hundred years: not having this as 
his first object, but rather his purpose of revenge on Dioscorus and his brethren. John paying 
but little attention to the communications of Epiphanius and Theophilus, was intent on 
instructing the churches; and he flourished more and more as a preacher, but made no ac- 
count of the plots which were laid against him. As soon, however, as it became apparent to 
everybody that Theophilus was endeavoring to divest John of his bishopric, then all those 
who had any ill-will against John, combined in calumniating him. And thus many of the 
clergy, and many of those in office, and of those who had great influence at the court, believ- 
ing that they had found an opportunity now of avenging themselves upon John, exerted 
themselves to procure the convocation of a Grand Synod at Constantinople, partly by 
sending letters and partly by dispatching messengers in all directions for that purpose. 

862 There were thirty- five bishops, besides several presbyters and laymen of some distinction in the ancient 
church, who bore the name of Epiphanius. The bishop here mentioned is the most illustrious of them all, being 
the author of the well-known treatise de Hceres. His see — that of Constantia in Cyprus — was the old ‘Salamis’ 
of Acts xiii. 5. 

863 It seems strange that Epiphanius should be classed with the Anthropomorphitae as Epiphanius himself 
repudiates their views according to the testimony of Jerome. Cf. Jerome, ad Pammachium , 2 et seq. Socrates 
must have been imposed upon by some Origenist, as the Origenists were accustomed to call all who condemned 
their views Anthropomorphitae. Cf. above, chap. 7. 


Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus convenes a Synod to condemn the Books of Or. . . 


Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John. 

Chapter XI . — Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John. 

The odium against John Chrysostom was considerably increased by another additional 
event as follows: two bishops flourished at that time, Syrians by birth, named Severian and 
Antiochus; Severian presided over the church at Gabala, a city of Syria, and Antiochus over 
that of Ptolemais in Phoenicia. They were both renowned for their eloquence; but although 
Severian was a very learned man, he did not succeed in using the Greek language perfectly; 
and so while speaking Greek he betrayed his Syrian origin. Antiochus came first to Con- 
stantinople, and having preached in the churches for some time with great zeal and ability, 
and having thus amassed a large sum of money, he returned to his own church. Severian 

hearing that Antiochus had collected a fortune by his visit to Constantinople, determined 
to follow his example. He therefore exercised himself for the occasion, and having composed 
a number of sermons, set out for Constantinople. Being most kindly received by John, to a 
certain point, he soothed and flattered the man, and was himself no less beloved and honored 
by him: meanwhile his discourses gained him great celebrity, so that he attracted the notice 
of many persons of rank, and even of the emperor himself. And as it happened at that time 
that the bishop of Ephesus died, John was obliged to go to Ephesus for the purpose of or- 
daining a successor. On his arrival at that city, as the people were divided in their choice, 
some proposing one person, and some another, John perceiving that both parties were in 
a contentious mood, and that they did not wish to adopt his counsel, he resolved without 
much ado to end their dispute by preferring to the bishopric a certain Heraclides, a deacon 
of his own, and a Cypriot by descent. And thus both parties desisting from their strife with 


each other had peace. Now as this detention [at Ephesus] was lengthened, Severian con- 
tinued to preach at Constantinople, and daily grew in favor with his hearers. Of this John 
was not left ignorant, for he was promptly made acquainted with whatever occurred, Sera- 

Q/r /r 

pion, of whom we have before spoken, communicating the news to him and asserting 
that the church was being troubled by Severian; thus the bishop was aroused to a feeling of 

864 The offerings of the congregations seem to have been divided usually among the officiating clergymen. 
Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. V. 4. 1. 

865 In another version of this eleventh chapter of the sixth book, appended at the end of the sixth book in 
the Greek text of Bright, instead of the sentence beginning ‘And thus both parties,’ &c. is found the following 
more consistent statement: ‘Inasmuch, however, as on this account a tumult arose at Ephesus, on the ground 
that Heraclides was not worthy of the bishopric, it became necessary for John to remain in Ephesus for a long 

866 The alternative version inserts here the following sentence: ‘And who was very much beloved by John 
and had been intrusted with the whole care of the episcopal administration, on account of his piety and faithfulness 
and watchfulness in respect to details of every sort, and diligence in matters pertaining to the interests of the 


Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John. 

jealousy. Having therefore among other matters deprived many of the Novatians and 
Quartodecimans of their churches, he returned to Constantinople. Here he resumed 
himself the care of the churches under his own especial jurisdiction. But Serapion’s arrogance 
no one could bear; for thus having won John’s unbounded confidence and regard, he was 
so puffed up by it that he treated every one with contempt. And on this account also anim- 
osity was inflamed the more against the bishop. On one occasion when Severian passed by 
him, Serapion neglected to pay him the homage due to a bishop, but continued seated [instead 
of rising] , indicating plainly how little he cared for his presence. Severian, unable to endure 

867 From this point to within one or two sentences of the end of the chapter the parallel version is so different 
at times that it will be well to insert it entire here for the purpose of comparison. It runs thus: ‘Not long afterward 
John came to Constantinople and assumed himself the churches which belonged to his jurisdiction. But between 
Serapion, the deacon, and Severian there had arisen a certain coolness; Serapion was opposed to Severian because 
the latter seemed desirous of excelling John in public speaking, and Severian was jealous of Serapion because 
the bishop John favored him, and the care of the bishopric had been intrusted to him. They being thus disposed 
toward one another, it happened that the evil of hatred was increased from the following cause. As Severian was 
passing by on one occasion Serapion did not render him the homage due to a bishop, but he continued sitting; 
whether because he had not noticed him, as he afterwards affirmed upon oath before a council, or because he 
cared little for him, being himself the vicegerent of a bishop, as Severian asserted, I am unable to say; God only 
knows. At the time, however, Severian did not tolerate the contempt; but immediately, and in anticipation of a 
public investigation before a council, he condemned Serapion upon oath, and not only declared him deposed 
from the dignity of the diaconate, but also put him out of the church. John upon learning this was very much 
grieved. As the matter afterwards was investigated by a council and Serapion defended himself declaring that 
he had not perceived [the approach of the bishop], and summoned witnesses to the fact, the common verdict 
of the assembled bishops was in favor of acquitting him and urging Severian to accept the apology of Serapion. 
The Bishop John, for his part, to satisfy Severian, suspended Serapion from the diaconate for a week; although 
he used him in all his affairs as his right hand, because he was very keen and diligent in ecclesiastical disputation. 
Severian however was not satisfied with these measures, but used all means to effect the permanent deposition 
of Serapion from the diaconate and his excommunication. John was extremely grieved at these words and arose 
from the council, leaving the adjudication of the case to the bishops present, saying to them, “Do you examine 
the matter in hand and render judgment according to your own conclusions; as for me I resign my part in the 
arbitration between them.” These things having been said by John as he arose, the council likewise arose and 
left the case, as it stood, blaming Severian the more for not yielding to the request of the Bishop John. After this 
John never received Severian into a private interview; but advised him to return to his own country, communic- 
ating to him the following message: “It is not expedient, Severian,” said he, “that the parish intrusted to you 
should remain for so long without care and bereft of a bishop; wherefore hasten and take charge of your churches, 
and do not neglect the gift which is in you.” As he now prepared for his journey and started, the Empress Eu- 
doxia, on being informed of the facts,’ &c. From this point the variations are few, verbal, and unimportant. 


Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John. 

patiently this [supposed] rudeness and contempt, said with a loud voice to those present, 
‘If Serapion should die a Christian, Christ has not become incarnate.’ Serapion, taking occa- 
sion from this remark, publicly incited Chrysostom to enmity against Severian: for suppress- 
ing the conditional clause of the sentence, ‘If Serapion die a Christian,’ and saying that he 
had made the assertion that ‘Christ has not become incarnate,’ he brought several witnesses 
of his own party to sustain this charge. But on being informed of this the Empress Eudoxia 
severely reprimanded John, and ordered that Severian should be immediately recalled from 
Chalcedon in Bithynia. He returned forthwith; but John would hold no intercourse whatever 
with him, nor did he listen to any one urging him to do so, until at length the Empress Eu- 
doxia herself, in the church called The Apostles, placed her son Theodosius, who now so 

Q/r o 

happily reigns, but was then quite an infant, before John’s knees, and adjuring him re- 
peatedly by the young prince her son, with difficulty prevailed upon him to be reconciled 
to Severian. In this manner then these men were outwardly reconciled; but they nevertheless 
continued cherishing a rancorous feeling toward each other. Such was the origin of the an- 
imosity [of John] against Severian. 

868 The ancients often swore by their children, especially when they wished to entreat others most earnestly. 
Cf. Vergil, JEneid, VI. 364, ‘Per caput hoc juro, per spem surgentis Juli.’ The form of abjuration used by Eudoxia 
was probably this: ‘By this little child of mine, and your spiritual son, whom I brought forth and whom you re- 
ceived out of the sacred font, be reconciled to Severian.’ Valesius, however, doubts the reality of this affair. 


Epiphanius, in order to gratify Theophilus, performs Ordinations at Constantinople... 

Chapter XII.— Epiphanius, in order to gratify Theophilus, performs Ordinations at Con- 
stantinople without John’s Permission. 

Not long after this, at the suggestion of Theophilus, the bishop Epiphanius again came 
from Cyprus to Constantinople; he brought also with him a copy of the synodical decree in 
which they did not excommunicate Origen himself but condemned his books. On reaching 
St. John’s church, which is seven miles distant from the city, he disembarked, and there 
celebrated a service; then after having ordained a deacon, he again entered the city. In 
complaisance to Theophilus he declined John’s courtesy, and engaged apartments in a 
private house. He afterwards assembled those of the bishops who were then in the capital, 
and producing his copy of the synodical decree condemnatory of Origen’s works, recited it 
before them; not being able to assign any reason for this judgment, than that it seemed fit 
to Theophilus and himself to reject them. Some indeed from a reverential respect for Epi- 
phanius subscribed the decree; but many refused to do so among whom was Theotimus 
bishop of Scythia, who thus addressed Epiphanius: — ‘I neither choose, Epiphanius,’ said he, 
‘to insult the memory of one who ended his life piously long ago; nor dare I be guilty of so 
impious an act, as that of condemning what our predecessors did not reject: and especially 
when I know of no evil doctrine contained in Origen’s books.’ Having said this, he brought 
forward one of that author’s works, and reading a few passages therefrom, showed that the 
sentiments propounded were in perfect accordance with the orthodox faith. He then added, 
‘Those who speak evil of these writings are unconsciously casting dishonor upon the sacred 
volume whence their principles are drawn.’ Such was the reply which Theotimus, a bishop 
celebrated for his piety and rectitude of life, made to Epiphanius. 

869 It was contrary to the canons of the church for a bishop to ordain a presbyter or a deacon in another’s 
diocese. Cf. Apostol. Can. 35. ‘Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits in cities and places not 
subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so without the consent of those persons who have authority over 
such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.’ Also Can. 16 of the Council 
of Nicasa; ‘If any one should dare to steal, as it were, a person who belongs to another [bishop], and to ordain 
him for his own church, without permission of the bishop from whom he was withdrawn, the ordination shall 
be void.’ 


The Author's Defence of Origen. 

Chapter XIII . — The Author’s Defence of Origen . 870 

But since carping detractors have imposed upon many persons and have succeeded in 
deterring them from reading Origen, as though he were a blasphemous writer, I deem it 
not unseasonable to make a few observations respecting him. Worthless characters, and 
such as are destitute of ability to attain eminence themselves, often seek to get into notice 
by decrying those who excel them. And first Methodius, bishop of a city in Lycia named 
Olympus, labored under this malady; next Eustathius, who for a short time presided over 
the church at Antioch; after him Apollinaris; and lastly Theophilus. This quaternion of re- 
vilers has traduced Origen, but not on the same grounds, one having found one cause of 
accusation against him, and another another; and thus each has demonstrated that what he 
has taken no objection to, he has fully accepted. For since one has attacked one opinion in 
particular, and another has found fault with another, it is evident that each has admitted as 
true what he has not assailed, giving a tacit approbation to what he has not attacked. Meth- 
odius indeed, when he had in various places railed against Origen, afterwards as if retracting 
all he had previously said, expresses his admiration of the man, in a dialogue which he entitled 
Xenon. But I affirm that from the censure of these men, greater commendation accrues 
to Origen. For those who have sought out whatever they deemed worthy of reprobation in 
him, and yet have never charged him with holding unsound views respecting the holy 
Trinity, are in this way most distinctly shown to bear witness to his orthodox piety: and by 
not reproaching him on this point, they commend him by their own testimony. But Ath- 
anasius the defender of the doctrine of consubstantiality, in his Discourses against the 
Arians continually cites this author as a witness of his own faith, interweaving his words 
with his own, and saying, ‘The most admirable and assiduous Origen,’ says he, ‘by his own 
testimony confirms our doctrine concerning the Son of God, affirming him to be co- eternal 
with the Father.’ Those therefore who load Origen with opprobrium, overlook the fact that 
their maledictions fall at the same time on Athanasius, the eulogist of Origen. So much will 
be enough for the vindication of Origen; we shall now return to the course of our history. 

870 The views of Origen met with opposition from the very outset. During his own lifetime he was condemned 
at Alexandria, and after his death repeatedly until 541 a.d., and perhaps also by the fifth general council held at 
Constantinople in 553. For a full account of the Origenistic Controversy, see Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christ. 
Biog. andAntiq., art. Origenistic Controversies. 

871 ‘The house of entertainment for strangers.’ Methodius’ works were in the literary form of the dialogue. 
Cf. his Convivum decern Virginum in Migne’s Patrologia Grceca, Vol. XVIII. 

872 Athan. de Deer. Nic. 27. 


Epiphanius is asked to meet John; on refusing he is admonished concerning... 

Chapter XIV. — Epiphanius is asked to meet John; on refusing he is admonished concerning 
his Anticanonical Proceedings; alarmed at this he leaves Constantinople. 

John was not offended because Epiphanius, contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, had 


made an ordination in his church; but invited him to remain with him at the episcopal 
palace. He, however, replied that he would neither stay nor pray with him, unless he would 
expel Dioscorus and his brethren from the city, and with his own hand subscribe the con- 
demnation of Origen’s books. Now as John deferred the performance of these things, saying 
that nothing ought to be done rashly before investigation by a general council, John’s ad- 
versaries led Epiphanius to adopt another course. For they contrived it so that as a meeting 
was in the church named The Apostles, Epiphanius came forth and before all the people 
condemned the books of Origen, excommunicated Dioscorus with his followers, and charged 
John with countenancing them. These things were reported to John; whereupon on the 
following day he sent the appended message to Epiphanius just as he entered the church: 
‘You do many things contrary to the canons, Epiphanius. In the first place you have 
made an ordination in the churches under my jurisdiction: then without my appointment, 
you have on your own authority officiated in them. Moreover, when heretofore I invited 
you hither, you refused to come, and now you take that liberty yourself. Beware therefore, 
lest a tumult being excited among the people, you yourself should also incur danger there- 

Epiphanius becoming alarmed on hearing these admonitions, left the church; and after 
accusing John of many things, he set out on his return to Cyprus. Some say that when he 
was about to depart, he said to John, ‘I hope that you will not die a bishop’: to which John 
replied, ‘Expect not to arrive at your own country.’ I cannot be sure that those who reported 
these things to me spoke the truth; but nevertheless the event was in the case of both as 
prophesied above. For Epiphanius did not reach Cyprus, having died on board the ship 
during his voyage; and John a short time afterwards was driven from his see, as we shall 
show in proceeding. 

873 See above, chap. 12 and note 1. 


John is expelled from his Church by a Synod held at Chalcedon on account... 

Chapter XV. — John is expelled from his Church by a Synod held at Chalcedon on account of 

his Dispraise of Women. 

When Epiphanius was gone, John was informed by some person that the Empress Eu- 
doxia had stimulated Epiphanius against him. And being of a fiery temperament, and of a 
ready utterance, he soon after pronounced a public invective against women in general. The 
people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the empress and so the speech was laid 
hold of by evil-disposed persons, and reported to those in authority. At length on being in- 
formed of it the empress immediately complained to her husband, telling him that the insult 
offered to herself was equally an insult against him. The emperor therefore authorized 
Theophilus to convoke a Synod without delay against John; Severian also co-operated in 
promoting this, for he still retained his grudge against Chrysostom. Not long time accordingly 
intervened before Theophilus arrived, having induced several bishops from different cities 
to accompany him; these however had been summoned by the emperor’s orders also. Many 
of the bishops in Asia John had deposed when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. 
Accordingly they all by previous agreement assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Cyrinus 
was at that time bishop of Chalcedon, an Egyptian by birth, who said many things to the 
bishops in disparagement of John, denouncing him as ‘the impious,’ ‘the haughty,’ ‘the in- 
exorable.’ They indeed were very much satisfied at these denunciations. But Maruthas 
bishop of Mesopotamia having involuntarily trod on Cyrinus’ foot, he was severely hurt by 
it and was unable to embark with the rest for Constantinople, but remained behind at 
Chalcedon. The rest crossed over. Now Theophilus had so openly avowed his hostility to 
John, that none of the clergy would go forth to meet him, or pay him the least honor; but 
some Alexandrian sailors happening to be on the spot — for at that time the grain transporting 
vessels were there — greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering 
the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called ‘The Placidian.’ 
Then on this account a torrent of accusations began to be poured forth against John; for no 
mention was now made of Origen, but all were intent on urging a variety of criminations, 
many of which were ridiculous. Preliminary matters being thus settled, the bishops were 
convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, a place called ‘The Oak, and immediately 
cited John to answer the charges which were brought against him. He also summoned Ser- 
apion the deacon; Tigris the eunuch presbyter, and Paul the reader, were likewise summoned 
to appear there with him, for these men were included in the impeachments, as participators 
in his guilt. And since John taking exception to those who had cited him, on the ground of 


their being his enemies, refused to attend, and demanded a general council, without delay 

874 Hence this is called the Synod at ‘the Oak’ ( Synodus ad Quercum). See Hefele, History of the Church 
Councils , Vol. II. p. 430. 

875 For a similar action of Athanasius based on the same reason, see I. 31. 


John is expelled from his Church by a Synod held at Chalcedon on account... 

they repeated their citation four times in succession; and as he persisted in his refusal to 
meet them as his judges, always giving the same answer, they condemned him, and deposed 
him without assigning any other cause for his deposition but that he refused to obey the 
summons. This decision on being announced towards evening, incited the people to a most 
alarming sedition; insomuch that they kept watch all night, and would by no means suffer 
him to be removed from the church, but cried out that his cause ought to be determined in 
a larger assembly. A decree of the emperor, however, commanded that he should be imme- 
diately expelled, and sent into exile; which as soon as John was apprised of, he voluntarily 
surrendered himself about noon unknown to the populace, on the third day after his con- 
demnation: for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and was accord- 
ingly led away. 


Sedition on Account of John Chrysostom's Banishment. He is recalled. 

Chapter XVI . — Sedition on Account of John Chrysostom’s Banishment. He is recalled. 

The people then became intolerably tumultuous; and as it frequently happens in such 
cases, many who before were adversely disposed against him, now changed their hostility 
into compassion, and said of him whom they had so recently desired to see deposed, that 
he had been traduced. By this means therefore they became very numerous who exclaimed 
against both the emperor and the Synod of bishops; but the origin of the intrigue they more 
particularly referred to Theophilus. For his fraudulent conduct could no longer be concealed, 
being exposed by many other indications, and especially by the fact of his having held 
communion with Dioscorus, and those termed ‘the Tall Monks, immediately after John’s 

deposition. But Severian preaching in the church, and thinking it a suitable occasion to de- 
claim against John, said: ‘If John had been condemned for nothing else, yet the haughtiness 
of his demeanor was a crime sufficient to justify his deposition. Men indeed are forgiven all 
other sins: but God resisteth the proud, as the Divine Scriptures teach us.’ These re- 
proaches made the people still more inclined to opposition; so that the emperor gave orders 
for his immediate recall. Accordingly Briso a eunuch in the service of the empress was 
sent after him, who finding him at Praenetum — a commercial town situated over against 
Nicomedia — brought him back toward Constantinople. And as he had been recalled, John 
refused to enter the city, declaring he would not do so until his innocence had been admitted 
by a higher tribunal. Thus he remained at a suburb called Marianae. Now as he delayed at 
that place the commotion increased, and caused the people to break forth into very indignant 
and opprobrious language against their rulers, wherefore to check their fury John was con- 
strained to proceed. On his way a vast multitude, with veneration and honor, conducted 
him immediately to the church; there they entreated him to seat himself in the episcopal 
chair, and give them his accustomed benediction. When he sought to excuse himself, saying 
that ‘this ought to be brought about by an order from his judges, and that those who con- 
demned him must first revoke their sentence,’ they were only the more inflamed with the 
desire of seeing him reinstated, and of hearing him address them again. The people finally 
prevailed on him to resume his seat, and pray as usual for peace upon them; after which, 
acting under the same constraint, he preached to them. This compliance on John’s part af- 
forded his adversaries another ground of crimination; but respecting this they took no action 
at that time. 

876 See above, chap. 7. 

877 1 Pet. v. 5; James iv. 6. 

878 Chap. 8. 


Conflict between the Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians on Account of. . . 

Chapter XVII. — Conflict between the Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians on Account of 

Heraclides; Flight of Theophilus and the Bishops of his Party. 

In the first place, then, Theophilus attempted to investigate the case of the ordination 
of Heraclides, that thereby he might if possible find occasion of again deposing John. 
Heraclides was not present at this scrutiny. He was nevertheless judged in his absence, on 
the charge of having unjustly beaten some persons, and afterwards dragged them in chains 
through the midst of the city of Ephesus. As John and his adherents remonstrated against 
the injustice of passing sentence upon an absent person, the Alexandrians contended that 
they ought to hear the accusers of Heraclides, although he was not present. A sharp contest 
therefore ensued between the Alexandrians and the Constantinopolitans, and a riot arose 
whereby many persons were wounded, and some were killed. Theophilus, seeing what was 
done, fled to Alexandria without ceremony; and the other bishops, except the few who 
supported John, followed his example, and returned to their respective sees. After these 
transactions, Theophilus was degraded, in every one’s estimation: but the odium attached 
to him was exceedingly increased by the shameless way in which he continued to read Ori- 
gen’s works. And when he was asked why he thus countenanced what he had publicly con- 
demned, he replied, ‘Origen’s books are like a meadow enameled with flowers of every kind. 
If, therefore, I chance to find a beautiful one among them, I cull it: but whatever appears to 
me to be thorny, I step over, as that which would prick.’ But Theophilus gave this answer 


without reflecting on the saying of the wise Solomon, that ‘the words of the wise are as 
goads’; and those who are pricked by the precepts they contain, ought not to kick against 
them. For these reasons then Theophilus was held in contempt by all men. Dioscorus bishop 
of Hermopolis, one of those termed ‘the Tall Monks,’ died a short time after the flight of 
Theophilus, and was honored with a magnificent funeral, being interred in the church at 
‘The Oak,’ where the Synod was convened on John’s account. John meanwhile was sedulously 
employed in preaching. He ordained Serapion bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, on whose ac- 
count the odium against himself had been raised. Not long after the following events oc- 

879 See above, chap. 11. 



Of Eudoxia's Silver Statue. On account of it John is exiled a Second Ti... 

Chapter XVIII. — Of Eudoxia’s Silver Statue. On account of it John is exiled a Second Time. 

At this time a silver statue of the Empress Eudoxia covered with a long robe was erec- 

oo 1 

ted upon a column of porphyry supported by a lofty base. And this stood neither near 
nor far from the church named Sophia, but one-half the breadth of the street separated 
them. At this statue public games were accustomed to be performed; these John regarded 
as an insult offered to the church, and having regained his ordinary freedom and keenness 
of tongue, he employed his tongue against those who tolerated them. Now while it would 
have been proper to induce the authorities by a supplicatory petition to discontinue the 
games, he did not do this, but employing abusive language he ridiculed those who had en- 
joined such practices. The empress once more applied his expressions to herself as indicating 
marked contempt toward her own person: she therefore endeavored to procure the convoc- 
ation of another council of bishops against him. When John became aware of this, he de- 


livered in the church that celebrated oration commencing with these words: Again 

Herodias raves; again she is troubled; she dances again; and again desires to receive John’s 
head in a charger.’ This, of course, exasperated the empress still more. Not long after the 
following bishops arrived: Leontius bishop of Ancyra in Asia, Ammonius of Laodicea in 
Pisidia, Briso of Philippi in Thrace, Acacius of Beroea in Syria, and some others. John 
presented himself fearlessly before them, and demanded an investigation of the charges 
which were made against him. But the anniversary of the birth of our Saviour having recurred, 
the emperor would not attend church as usual, but sent Chrysostom a message to the effect 
that he should not partake of the communion with him until he had cleared himself of the 
crimes with which he stood impeached. Now as John maintained a bold and ardent bearing, 
and his accusers seemed to grow faint-hearted, the bishops present, setting aside all other 
matters, said they would confine themselves to this sole consideration, that he had on his 
own responsibility, after his deposition, again seated himself in the episcopal chair, without 
being authorized by an ecclesiastical council. As he alleged that sixty- five bishops who had 
held communion with him had reinstated him, the partisans of Leontius objected, saying: 
‘A larger number voted against you, John, in the Synod.’ But although John then contended 
that this was a canon of the Arians, and not of the catholic church, and therefore it was in- 
operative against him — for it had been framed in the council convened against Athanasius 

881 From Prosper Aquitamus and Marcellinus’ Chronicon, we learn that this was done in 403 a.d., or rather 
the consulship of Theodosius the younger and Rumoridius. 

882 This discourse entitled ‘In decollationem Prcecursoris et baptistce Joannis is to be found in Migne’s 
Patrologia Grcecia, Vol. LIV. p. 485, and in Savile’s edition of Chrysostom’s works, Vol. VII. 545. Savile, however, 
places it among the spurious pieces, and considers it unworthy of the genius of Chrysostom. 


Of Eudoxia's Silver Statue. On account of it John is exiled a Second Ti... 


at Antioch, for the subversion of the doctrine of consubstantiality — the bishops would 

not listen to his defence, but immediately condemned him, without considering that by 
using this canon they were sanctioning the deposition of Athanasius himself. This sentence 
was pronounced a little before Easter; the emperor therefore sent to tell John that he could 
not go to the church, because two Synods had condemned him. Accordingly Chrysostom 
was silenced, and went no more to the church; but those who were of his party celebrated 
Easter in the public baths which are called Constantianae, and thenceforth left the church. 
Among them were many bishops and presbyters, with others of the clerical order, who from 
that time held their assemblies apart in various places, and were from him denominated 
‘Johannites.’ For the space of two months, John refrained from appearing in public; after 
which a decree of the emperor sent him into exile. Thus he was led into exile by force, and 
on the very day of his departure, some of the Johannites set fire to the church, which by 
means of a strong easterly wind, communicated with the senate-house. This conflagration 
happened on the 20th of June, under the sixth consulate of Honorius, which he bore in 
conjunction with Aristaenetus. The severities which Optatus, the prefect of Constantinople, 

a pagan in religion, and a hater of the Christians, inflicted on John’s friends, and how he 
put many of them to death on account of this act of incendiarism, I ought, I believe, to pass 
by in silence. 885 

883 Cf. II. 8. 

884 404 a.d. 

885 Some of these details presumably are given by Sozomen in VIII. 23 and 24. 


Ordination of Arsacius as John's Successor. Indisposition of Cyrinus Bishop... 

Chapter XIX. — Ordination of Arsacius as John’s Successor. Indisposition of Cyrinus Bishop 
of Chalcedon. 

After the lapse of a few days, Arsacius was ordained bishop of Constantinople; he was 
a brother of Nectarius who so ably administered the see before John, although he was then 
very aged, being upwards of eighty years old. While he very mildly and peacefully admin- 
istered the episcopate, Cyrinus bishop of Chalcedon, upon whose foot Maruthas bishop of 
Mesopotamia had inadvertently trodden, became so seriously affected by the accident, that 
mortification ensued, and it became necessary to amputate his foot. Nor was this amputation 
performed once only, but was required to be often repeated: for after the injured limb was 
cut off, the evil so permeated his whole system, that the other foot also having become affected 


by the disease had to submit to the same operation. I have alluded to this circumstance, 
because many have affirmed that what he suffered was a judgment upon him for his 


calumnious aspersions of John, whom he so often designated as arrogant and inexorable, 


as I have already said. Furthermore as on the 30th of September, in the last-mentioned 
consulate, there was an extraordinary fall of hail of immense size at Constantinople and 
its suburbs, it also was declared to be an expression of Divine indignation on account of 
Chrysostom’s unjust deposition: and the death of the empress tended to give increased 
credibility to these reports, for it took place four days after the hail- storm. Others, however, 
asserted that John had been deservedly deposed, because of the violence he had exercised 
in Asia and Lydia, in depriving the Novatians and Quartodecimans of many of their churches, 
when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. But whether John’s deposition was just, 
as his enemies declare, or Cyrinus suffered in chastisement for his slanderous revilings; 
whether the hail fell, or the empress died on John’s account, or whether these things happened 
for other reasons, or for these in connection with others, God only knows, who is the dis- 
cerner of secrets, and the just judge of truth itself. I have simply recorded the reports which 
were current at that time. 

886 Palladius makes mention of this case without, however, naming Cyrinus. Cf. Vit. S. Joan. Chrysostom, 
chap. 17 (Vol. XIII. p. 63 A. of Benedictine ed. of Chrysostom). 

887 avovarov, lit. = ‘kneeless.’ 

888 Cf. chap. 15, above. 

404 a.d. 



Death of Arsacius, and Ordination of Atticus. 

Chapter XX. — Death of Arsacius, and Ordination of Atticus. 

But Arsacius did not long survive his accession to the bishopric; for he died on the 11th 
of November under the following consulate, which was Stilicho’s second, and the first of 
Anthemius. 890 In consequence of the fact that the bishopric became desirable and many 
aspired to the vacant see, much time elapsed before the election of a successor: but at length 

OQ 1 

in the following consulate, which was the sixth of Arcadius, and the first of Probus, a 
devout man named Atticus was promoted to the episcopate. He was a native of Sebastia in 
Armenia, and had followed an ascetic life from an early age: moreover in addition to a 
moderate share of learning, he possessed a large amount of natural prudence. But I shall 


speak of him more particularly a little later. 

890 405 a.d. 

891 406 a.d. 

892 Cf. VII. 2. 


John dies in Exile. 

Chapter XXL — John dies in Exile. 

John taken into exile died in Comana on the Euxine, on the 14th of September, in the 


following consulate, which was the seventh of Honorius, and the second of Theodosius. 

A man, as we have before observed, 894 who on account of zeal for temperance was inclined 
rather to anger than forbearance: and his personal sanctity of character led him to indulge 
in a latitude of speech which to others was intolerable. Indeed, it is most inexplicable to me, 
how with a zeal so ardent for the practice of self-control and blamelessness of life, he should 
in his sermons appear to teach a loose view of temperance. For whereas by the Synod of 
bishops repentance was accepted but once from those who had sinned after baptism; he did 


not scruple to say, ‘Approach, although you may have repented a thousand times.’ For 
this doctrine, many even of his friends censured him, but especially Sisinnius bishop of the 
Novatian; who wrote a book condemnatory of the above quoted expression of Chrysostom’s, 


and severely rebuked him for it. But this occurred long before. 

893 407 a.d. 

894 Cf. above, chap. 3. 

895 These words are not found in any of Chrysostom’s extant homilies. There is no reason, however, for 
thinking that they were not uttered by him in a sermon now not in existence. Socrates’ remarks on Chrysostom’s 
attitude made here are among the considerations which have led some to think that he was a Novatian. Cf. Introd. 
p. x. 

896 For further particulars on Chrysostom’s life and the circumstances of his death, see authorities mentioned 
in chap. 2, note 3. 


OfSisinnius Bishop of the Novations. His Readiness at Repartee. 

Chapter XXII . — OfSisinnius Bishop of the Novations. His Readiness at Repartee. 

It will not be out of place here, I conceive, to give some account of Sisinnius. He was, 
as I have often said, a remarkably eloquent man, and well- instructed in philosophy. But 
he had particularly cultivated logic, and was profoundly skilled in the interpretation of the 
holy Scriptures; insomuch that the heretic Eunomius often shrank from the acumen which 
his reasoning displayed. As regards his diet he was not simple; for although he practised the 
strictest moderation, yet his table was always sumptuously furnished. He was also accustomed 
to indulge himself by wearing white garments, and bathing twice a day in the public baths. 
And when some one asked him ‘why he, a bishop, bathed himself twice a day?’ he replied, 
‘Because it is inconvenient to bathe thrice.’ Going one day from courtesy to visit the bishop 
Arsacius, he was asked by one of the friends of that bishop, ‘why he wore a garment so un- 
suitable for a bishop? and where it was written that an ecclesiastic should be clothed in 
white?’ ‘Do you tell me first,’ said he, ‘where it is written that a bishop should wear black?’ 
When he that made the inquiry knew not what to reply to this counter- question: ‘You cannot 
show,’ rejoined Sisinnius, ‘that a priest should be clothed in black. But Solomon is my au- 
thority, whose exhortation is, ‘Let thy garments be white.” And our Saviour in the Gospels 
appears clothed in white raiment : 899 moreover he showed Moses and Elias to the apostles, 
clad in white garments.’ His prompt reply to these and other questions called forth the ad- 
miration of those present. Again when Leontius bishop of Ancyra in Galatia Minor, who 
had taken away a church from the Novatians, was on a visit to Constantinople, Sisinnius 
went to him, and begged him to restore the church. But he received him rudely, saying, ‘Ye 
Novatians ought not to have churches; for ye take away repentance, and shut out Divine 
mercy.’ As Leontius gave utterance to these and many other such revilings against the 
Novatians, Sisinnius replied: ‘No one repents more heartily than I do.’ And when Leontius 
asked him ‘Why do you repent?’ ‘That I came to see you,’ said he. On one occasion John 
the bishop having a contest with him, said, ‘The city cannot have two bishops .’ 900 ‘Nor has 
it,’ said Sisinnius. John being irritated at this response, said, ‘You see you pretend that you 

897 Cf. V. 10 and 21. 

898 Eccl. ix. 8. 

899 Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 3; Luke ix. 29. On the clothing of the clergy, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VI. 4. 18. 

900 The canons forbade the existence of two authoritative bishops in one city. Cf. V. 5, note 3. It was supposed 
to be an apostolic tradition that prescribed this practice, and the faithful always resisted and condemned any 
attempts to consecrate a second bishop in a city. Thus ‘when Constantius proposed that Liberius and Felix 
should sit as co-partners in the Roman see and govern the church in common, the people with one accord rejected 
the proposal, crying out “One God, one Christ, one bishop.” The rule, however, did not apply to the case of co- 
adjutors, where the bishop was too old or infirm to discharge his episcopal duties.’ See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. 
II. 13. 


OfSisinnius Bishop of the Novations. His Readiness at Repartee. 

alone are the bishop.’ ‘I do not say that,’ rejoined Sisinnius; ‘but that I am not bishop in your 
estimation only, who am such to others.’ John being still more chafed at this reply, said, ‘I 
will stop your preaching; for you are a heretic.’ To which Sisinnius good-humoredly replied, 
‘I will give you a reward, if you will relieve me from so arduous a duty.’ John being softened 
a little by this answer, said, ‘I will not make you cease to preach, if you find speaking so 
troublesome.’ So facetious was Sisinnius, and so ready at repartee: but it would be tedious 
to dwell further on his witticisms. Wherefore by means of a few specimens we have illustrated 
what sort of a person he was, deeming these as sufficient. I will merely add that he was cel- 
ebrated for erudition, and on account of it all the bishops who succeeded him loved and 
honored him; and not only they but all the leading members of the senate also esteemed 
and admired him. He is the author of many works: but they are characterized by too great 
an affectation of elegance of diction, and a lavish intermingling of poetic expressions. On 
which account he was more admired as a speaker than as a writer; for there was dignity in 
his countenance and voice, as well as in his form and aspect, and every movement of his 
person was graceful. On account of these features he was loved by all the sects, and he was 
in especial favor with Atticus the bishop. But I must conclude this brief notice of Sisinnius. 


Death of the Emperor Arcadius. 

Chapter XXIII . — Death of the Emperor Arcadius. 

Not long after the death of John, the Emperor Arcadius died also. This prince was of a 
mild and gentle disposition, and toward the close of his life was esteemed to be greatly beloved 
of God, from the following circumstance. There was at Constantinople an immense mansion 
called Carya; for in the court of it there is a walnut tree on which it is said Acacius suffered 
martyrdom by hanging; on which account a chapel was built near it, which the Emperor 
Arcadius one day thought fit to visit, and after having prayed there, left again. All who lived 
near this chapel ran in a crowd to see the emperor; and some going out of the mansion re- 
ferred to, endeavored to preoccupy the streets in order to get a better view of their sovereign 
and his suite, while others followed in his train, until all who inhabited it, including the 
women and children, had wholly gone out of it. No sooner was this vast pile emptied of its 
occupants, the buildings of which completely environed the church, than the entire building 
fell. On which there was a great outcry, followed by shouts of admiration, because it was 
believed the emperor’s prayer had rescued so great a number of persons from destruction. 
This event occurred in that manner. On the 1st of May, Arcadius died, leaving his son 
Theodosius only eight years old, under the consulate of Bassus and Philip, in the second 
year of the 297th Olympiad. 901 He had reigned thirteen years with Theodosius his father, 
and fourteen years after his death, and had then attained the thirty- first year of his age. This 
book includes the space of twelve years and six months. 902 

901 408 a.d. 

902 The Greek editions [of Stephens, Valesius, Hussey, Bright, &c.] add the alternate form of chap. 1 1 at this 
place. For purposes of convenience in comparing the two versions we have given the variants with chapter 11. 


Book VII 

Book VII. 

Chapter l— Anthemius the Prcetorian Prefect administers the Government of the East in Behalf 
of Young Theodosius. 

After the death of Arcadius on the first of May, during the consulate of Bassus and 
Philip , 903 his brother Honorius still governed the Western parts of the empire; but the ad- 
ministration of the East devolved on his son Theodosius the Younger, then only eight years 
old. The management of public affairs was therefore intrusted to Anthemius the Praetorian 
prefect, grandson of that Philip who in the reign of Constantius ejected Paul from the see 
of Constantinople, and established Macedonius in his place. By his directions Constantinople 
was surrounded with high walls . 904 He was esteemed and actually was the most prudent 
man of his time, and seldom did anything unadvisedly, but consulted with the most j udicious 
of his friends respecting all practical matters, and especially with Troilus 905 the sophist, who 
while excelling in philosophical attainments, was equal to Anthemius himself in political 
wisdom. Wherefore almost all things were done with the concurrence of Troilus. 

903 408 a.d. Cf. VI. 23. See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 32. 

904 This was done, according to Cedrenus, several years later by another prefect. For this reason and because 
of the grammatical construction in the original, Valesius rightly conjectures that the phrase is a gloss introduced 
from the margin, and should be expunged from the text. 

905 Troilus was a sophist of distinction who taught at Constantinople under Arcadius and Honorius at the 
beginning of the fifth century a.d., a native of Side and author of a treatise entitled Aoyot TtoAtriKOt. See Suidas 
s.v. Tpd>& 187 -Ao<;. 


Character and Conduct of Athens Bishop of Constantinople. 

Chapter II . — Character and Conduct ofAtticus Bishop of Constantinople. 

When Theodosius the emperor was in the eighth year of his age, Atticus was in the third 
year of his presidency over the church at Constantinople, a man as we have by anticipation 
said 906 distinguished alike for his learning, piety, and discretion, wherefore it came about 
that the churches under his episcopate attained a very flourishing condition. For he not only 
united those of ‘the household of faith ,’ 907 but also by his prudence called forth the admira- 
tion of the heretics, whom indeed he by no means desired to harass; but if he sometimes 
was obliged to impress them with the fear of himself, he soon afterward showed himself 
mild and clement toward them. But indeed he did not neglect his studies; for he assiduously 
labored in perusing the writings of the ancients, and often spent whole nights in the task; 
and thus he could not be confused by the reasonings of the philosophers, and the fallacious 
subtleties of the sophists. Besides this he was affable and entertaining in conversation, and 
ever ready to sympathize with the afflicted: and in a word, to sum up his excellences in the 
apostle’s saying, ‘He was made all things to all men .’ 908 Formerly while a presbyter, he had 
been accustomed, after composing his sermons, to commit them to memory, and then recite 
them in the church: but by diligent application he acquired confidence and made his instruc- 
tion extemporaneous and eloquent. His discourses however were not such as to be received 
with much applause by his auditors, nor to deserve to be committed to writing. Let these 
particulars respecting his talents, erudition, and manners suffice. We must now proceed to 
relate such things as are worthy of record, that happened in his time. 

906 Cf. VI. 20. 

907 Gal. vi. 10. 

908 1 Cor. ix. 22. 


Of Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops ofSynada. 

Chapter III . — Of Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops ofSynada. 

A certain Theodosius was bishop of Synada in Phrygia Pacata; he violently persecuted 
the heretics in that province — and there was a great number of them — and especially those 
of the Macedonian sect; he drove them out not only from the city, but also out of the 
country. This course he pursued not from any precedent in the orthodox church, nor from 
the desire of propagating the true faith; but being enslaved by the love of filthy lucre, he was 
impelled by the avaricious motive of amassing money, by extorting it from the heretics. To 
this end he made all sorts of attempts upon the Macedonians, putting arms into the hands 
of his clergy; and employing innumerable stratagems against them; nor did he refrain from 
delivering them up to the secular tribunals . 909 But he especially annoyed their bishop whose 
name was Agapetus: and finding the governors of the province were not invested with suf- 
ficient authority to punish heretics according to his wish, he went to Constantinople and 
petitioned for edicts of a more stringent nature from the Praetorian prefect. While 
Theodosius was absent on this business, Agapetus who, as I have said, presided over the 
Macedonian sect, came to a wise and prudent conclusion. Communicating with his clergy, 
he called all the people under his guidance together, and persuaded them to embrace the 
‘homoousian’ faith. On their acquiescing in this proposition, he proceeded immediately to 
the church attended not merely by his own adherents, but by the whole body of the people. 
There having offered prayer, he took possession of the episcopal chair in which Theodosius 
was accustomed to seat himself; and preaching thenceforth the doctrine of consubstantiality, 
he reunited the people, and made himself master of the churches in the diocese of Synada. 
Soon after these transactions, Theodosius returned to Synada, bringing with him extended 
powers from the prefect, and knowing nothing of what had taken place, he proceeded to 
the church just as he was. Being forthwith unanimously expelled, he again betook himself 
to Constantinople; upon his arrival at that place he complained to Atticus, the bishop, of 
the treatment he had met with, and the manner in which he had been deprived of his bish- 
opric. Atticus perceiving that this movement had resulted advantageously to the church, 
consoled Theodosius as well as he could; recommending him to embrace with a contented 
mind a retired life, and thus sacrifice his own private interests to the public good. He then 
wrote to Agapetus authorizing him to retain the episcopate, and bidding him be under no 
apprehension of being molested in consequence of Theodosius’ grievance. 

909 On the limits of the secular power over ecclesiastical dignitaries, and the cases in which the clergy were 
amenable to the civil law as well as those in which they were not, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. V. 2. 


A Paralytic Jew healed by Atticus in Baptism. 

Chapter IV. — A Paralytic Jew healed by Atticus in Baptism. 

This was one important improvement in the circumstances of the Church, which 
happened during the administration of Atticus. Nor were these times without the attestation 
of miracles and healings. For a certain Jew being a paralytic had been confined to his bed 
for many years; and as every sort of medical skill, and the prayers of his Jewish brethren had 
been resorted to but had availed nothing, he had recourse at length to Christian baptism, 
trusting in it as the only true remedy to be used . 910 When Atticus the bishop was informed 
of his wishes, he instructed him in the first principles of Christian truth, and having preached 
to him to hope in Christ, directed that he should be brought in his bed to the font. The 
paralytic Jew receiving baptism with a sincere faith, as soon as he was taken out of the bap- 
tismal font found himself perfectly cured of his disease, and continued to enjoy sound health 
afterwards. This miraculous power Christ vouchsafed to be manifested even in our times; 
and the fame of it caused many heathens to believe and be baptized. But the Jews although 
zealously ‘seeking after signs ,’ 911 not even the signs which actually took place induced to 
embrace the faith. Such blessings were thus conferred by Christ upon men. 

910 On the supposed miraculous effects of baptism, see Tertullian, de baptismo, passim. 

911 ICor. i. 22. 


The Presbyter Sabbatius, formerly a Jew, separates from the Novations. 

Chapter V . — The Presbyter Sabbatius, formerly a Jew, separates from the Novations. 

Many, however, making no account of these events yielded to their own depravity; for 
not only did the Jews continue in unbelief after this miracle, but others also who love to 
follow them were shown to hold views similar to theirs. Among these was Sabbatius, of 
whom mention has before been made; who not being content with the dignity of presbyter 

to which he had attained, but aiming at a bishopric from the beginning, separated himself 
from the church of the Novatians, making a pretext of observing the Jewish Passover. 
Holding therefore schismatic assemblies apart from his own bishop Sisinnius, in a place 
named Xerolophus, where the forum of Arcadius now is, he ventured on the performance 
of an act deserving the severest punishments. Reading one day at one of these meetings that 
passage in the Gospel where it is said , 914 ‘Now it was the Feast of the Jews called the Passover,’ 
he added what was never written nor heard of before: ‘Cursed be he that celebrates the 
Passover out of the days of unleavened bread.’ When these words were reported among the 
people, the more simple of the Novatian laity, deceived by this artifice, flocked to him. But 
his fraudulent fabrication was of no avail to him; for his forgery issued in most disastrous 
consequences. For shortly afterwards he kept this feast in anticipation of the Christian 
Easter; and many according to their custom flocked to him. While they were passing the 
night in the accustomed vigils, a panic as if caused by evil spirits fell upon them, as if Sisin- 
nius their bishop were coming with a multitude of persons to attack them. From the perturb- 
ation that might be expected in such a case, and their being shut up at night in a confined 
place, they trod upon one another, insomuch that above seventy of them were crushed to 
death. On this account many deserted Sabbatius: some however, holding his ignorant pre- 
judice, remained with him. In what way Sabbatius, by a violation of his oath, afterwards 
managed to get himself ordained a bishop, we shall relate hereafter . 915 

912 V. 21. 

913 Cf. I. 8, note 2, and V. 22 and notes. 

914 Not an exact quotation. Luke xxii. 1, resembles it more than any other of the parallels. 

915 Cf. chap. 12 below. 


The Leaders of Arianism at this Tune. 

Chapter VI . — The Leaders of Arianism at this Time. 

Dorotheus bishop of the Arians, who, as we have said, 916 was translated by that sect 
from Antioch to Constantinople, having attained the age of one hundred and nineteen years, 
died on the 6th of November, in the seventh consulate of Honorius, and the second of 
Theodosius Augustus. After him Barbas presided over the Arian sect, in whose time the 
Arian faction was favored by possessing two very eloquent members, both having the rank 
of presbyter, one of whom was named Timothy, and the other George. Now George excelled 
in Grecian literature; Timothy, on the other hand, was proficient in the sacred Scriptures. 
George indeed constantly had the writings of Aristotle and Plato in his hands: Timothy 
found his inspiration in Origen; he also evinced in his public expositions of the holy Scrip- 
tures no inconsiderable acquaintance with the Hebrew language. Now Timothy had formerly 


identified himself with the sect of the Psathyrians, but George had been ordained by 
Barbas. I have myself conversed with Timothy, and was exceedingly struck by the readiness 
with which he would answer the most difficult questions, and clear up the most obscure 
passages in the Divine oracles; he also invar